[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
I know the parents of several of these kids. My heart goes out to them. This is where a parent cannot look into a mirror without enduring a torturous second guessing of all of a child's parenting. All the injustice of the law, the coldness of the cops, the grind of the courts, and the terrifying prospects for one's child in prison are stressing these mothers and fathers beyond all redlines. Karma is karma, and ours is to have these folks, so much like me, you, triggering our compassion as but for the grace might I or thou be in their same straits. If you live near them, get a casserole over to them, offer some help, shake their hands warmly, whatever. Look into eyes. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. -- Kahlil Gibran Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They came through you but not from you and though they are with you yet they belong not to you. Kahlil Gibran Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > The kids arrested included the sons of Fairfield's meditating mayor > and > > Board of Education member: > > http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_11685597 > > > > > Oh, this is better than the most recent episodes of "Big Love" > (actually, kinda the same premise as TMers in the TMO). >
[FairfieldLife] Sanskrit and computers?
[Panini] computer programmingâ Lähettäjä: panini2...@googlegroups.com käyttäjän Manoj Reghupathy (manojv...@gmail.com) puolesta Lähetetty: 17. helmikuuta 2009 13:55:02 Vast.ott.: panini2...@googlegroups.com Listers, I think this info will help Aseem. The following are the two replies given to a similar question asked in another sanskrit forum. - 1.Cybernetics: It has even been suggested (by Rick Briggs NASA researcher - refer to Quotes221_250) that the 'structures' constructed by Paanini (followed by shaabdabodhas written later) could be useful in the development of efficient, high-level computing languages [we may presume here that these would eventually be based the systematics of deriving words from "roots" (dhaatus), avoiding the use of alphanumeric operator symbols, so characteristic of 'computer languages']. As of now, I understand that computer-based tests of the internal consistency of the "Ashtaadhyaayee" are being developed by Dr. P. Ramanujan at the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing. Software based on Paaninean rules for the retrieval of word forms has been developed at the Siddhaganga Mutt, Karnataka Research of an advanced nature is also being carried out at the Academy of Sanskrit Research, Melukote, also in Karnataka. While these could be regarded as very active areas of fruitful investigation, the practicality of some suggestions on the possibility of using the structure of Sanskrt for machine translation (See, for example, a method of numerical representation of inflections put forward by the present writer in an article contributed to "Samskrti-94" (the 1994 issue of the organ of the Samskrta Sangha of the Indian Institute of Science), remains to be tested. Paanini's ideas may also contain the germ of an understanding, based on linguistics, that could lead to the unraveling of the connections between brain activity and how the apparatus of human speech works. The pertinence here is in trying to answer, for example, the question, "Why is it easier to say jagat + naatha as jagannaatha or abd-ul + rahman as abd-ur-rahman (both of which exactly follow the relevant Paninean rule, the second, from a Semitic language, showing the universal applicability of Paninean phonetics)? Such investigations can be expected to yield results only in the far future, however, after much greater progress has been achieved in understanding how the speech centres of the brain function. (source: Whence and Whither of Indian Science - Can we integrate with our past and carry on from there? â" Contributed by S. N. Balasubrahmanyam - (Retd) Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore). (For more refer to Electronic Panini - http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_pdf/aShTAdhyAyI.pdf and Sanskrit Learning Tools - http://sanskrit.gde.to/learning_tools/learning_tools.html and A Software on Sanskrit Grammar based on Panini's Sutras - http://www.taralabalu.org/panini/greetings.htm). Refer to French version of this chapter - Le Sanscrit - By Dharma Today. - 2. You might have already searched. But Here are couple of links I found to be good reading. http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/software/perl_intro.php http://www.go4expert.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59 This another one is an excellent weblink related to Sanskrit and other topics related to Sankrit and computer as well. http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-enlightenment.html --- Well, its good to know that I was not alone in noticing "un-sanskritness" here ( pls see Shri.Nityanand Misra's reply). Regards Manoj
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > There's one *huge* difference you're missing: I > > > don't attack or belittle Vaj for his spiritual > > > beliefs and practices or criticize his teachers. > > > > No your focus is more personal. I don't understand > > why you think this is an improvement. > > I didn't say it was an "improvement." It's what > I'm responding to; it's the provocation. > Attacking and belittling a person or group for > their personal beliefs and practices is > reprehensible, in my view, and deserving of > strong personal criticism. > > YMMV. So, obviously, does yours, Judy. Please point us to the posts of yours in which you have expressed "strong criticism" of Nablus or ed11 when *they* belittled Buddhists and Buddhism. Are those not "personal beliefs and practices?" Is this not equally reprehensible? WHY do they "get a pass" and Vaj does not? Could it possibly be that Nablus and ed11 are "attacking and belittling" people you consider to be "anti-TMers?" Fuckin' hypocrite.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy about Vaj
emptybill, tHis explains a lot. Knowing the motivations and affiliation of a would be interloper on FFLife helps level the playing field. Thanks. Vaj is a Hare Krishna guy? Who knew? As he hypocritically hides the identity of his affiliation, ashamed and fearful of derision, he enjoys the catbird seat judging TM'ers. Coward. I've visited the ISKCON Temple in Detroit a few times. They serve a great lunch. They also serve up a thing or two on their website that sounds like Vaj's POV: http://tinyurl.com/ckocau "...The meditation business is flourishing these days. Modern-day "messiahs," "gurus," and "incarnations," with all varieties of mantras, are a dime a dozen, as eager customers flock to the feet of self-styled saviors...Some chic spiritual seekers pay a lot of money for secret mantras that they believe will allow them to perform mystic feats. But the Vedic literatures issue stern warnings about charlatan gurus and bogus mantras. If a person is actually serious about spiritual life, he or she must come in contact with a bona fide spiritual master and learn from him the science of Krsna consciousness. The Mundaka Upanisad states that "In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth." Not just any guru will do. This verse informs us that the spiritual master must be in disciplic succession from Lord Krsna, the supreme spiritual master. Such a genuine spiritual master receives Krsna's teachings through the disciplic chain and distributes them exactly as he has heard them from his spiritual master, without watering them down or altering them to suit his whims. A bona fide guru is not an impersonalist or voidist. He will never claim to be God; rather, he aspires to be a servant of God and His devotees. Such a guru is called acarya, or one who teaches by example. His life is free from all material desires and sinful behavior, his character is exemplary, and he must be qualified to deliver his disciples from the path of repeated birth and death. The Krsna conscious guru is absorbed in service to or meditation on the Supreme Lord at every moment. Since the holy name of Krsna is completely spiritual, it must be received from a pure representative or servant of Krsna, who acts as a transparent via medium between God and the sincere spiritual seeker. Mantras received from any other type of "guru" simply will not work." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > Vaj came here at the invitation of Kirk Bernhardt after they met at a > Dzogchen retreat. Because he spoke the language of Dzogchen and Tantra, > Kirk thought Vaj was a Tantric-Dzogchen practitioner. Since Kirk was > getting into conceptual tussles with some people here, he decided he > could use someone with a similar background to back him up in > discussions. So he invited Vaj to the group to shake everyone up > starting with "Hey, look at my little friend, Vaj, curled up here in > my travel bag. Isn't he really cool man? Don't worry! He really > likes being with people. He'll just slither up around your neck and > wrap around it with a flickering kiss. You'll be like Lord Shiva > wearing his garland of serpents." So he talked and people were > willing to listen for a while, entertained by the little whispering Vaj. > > What Kirk didn't realize was that Vaj was not the strident Buddhist > he appeared to be. Vaj was actually a Gaudiya Vaishnava disciple of one > of the Hare Krsna ritvik-gurus who was still active here in America. Vaj > was performing a task requested by his initiating guru, Srila > Vijayadarshana dasa Goswami. The request was for Vaj to follow in the > lead of prior Vaishnava followers to disrupt and refute the demonic > "Mayavadins", of whom they considered Maharishi to be the > biggest. (Mayavadin is a Vaishnava term denoting someone believing > everything is illusion.) > > The basic technique of this practice is for the opponent (Vaj) to admix > with the forum as a person with similar experiences. After people become > comfortable with his flickering tongue, he then gradually introduces > doubts and rebuttals from a tradition that is somewhat similar > (Buddhist) but which criticizes the one in which he is temporarily > positioned (Advaita Vedanta). The sole purpose is to unlatch people from > their familiarity with their own experiences (i.e. introducing doubt > about everything) and then offering them a variant framework for > understanding. The key here is not to be too precise but rather give > generic notions of "superior" states and stations of spiritual > development that are unavailable, except from another tradition. > > The ironic premise of it all is hilarious. Serpentine Vaj is actually > using an anti-cult deprogramming technique to free us from ourselves. > First by trying to displace our belief in our direct experience with > inveterate doubt (doubt for its own sake) and then secondly
[FairfieldLife] Visualization Exercise (was Re: Breaking the back of the devil)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > One of the things that is largely "missing > > > in action" from TM-related teachings is > > > visualization. That is where the student > > > of self discovery is encouraged to create > > > in their "mind's eye" a visual represent- > > > ation of their favorite guru or god/goddess, > > > and make that image as accurate and detailed > > > as possible. It is said that the ability to > > > do this well strengthens the mind and can > > > lead to liberation in a very short time. > > > > > > To correct this deficiency in the TM teachings, > > > I propose a short (and free!) visualization > > > exercise for Fairfield Life members: > > > > > > 1. Read the following dharma talk from a noted > > > enlightened being. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > yes, even though the practice of TM is as effortless as > > > > possible, the integration of the experience of the > > > > transcendent into daily life is anything but. although > > > > many seem to have forgotten about it, the Maharishi, > > > > especially in his earlier sermons, spoke about dipping > > > > the cloth and then engaging in -tremendous activity- to > > > > make it colorfast. this idea that we would all somehow > > > > magically drift into enlightenment is incorrect thinking. > > > > > > 2. After you read it, close your eyes and try > > > to visualize the enlightened being speaking > > > the dharma talk aloud. > > > > > > 3. Try to visualize as many details about the > > > speaker's appearance as possible. For example, > > > pay attention to the tasteful dress and high > > > heels bought on sale at the Gap. Notice the > > > elegant but understated necklace and earrings. > > > Note how they set off and highlight the speaker's > > > two-day weekend beard stubble and deep, sultry > > > Kathleen Turner-like voice. > > > > If that makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth > > can I stop or does that mean "something good is > > happening?" > > > > When I got the whiff of Flanegin's cologne, O de > > Supercilious, I felt nausea. > > Yes. It's all part of the "dipping the cloth" > aspect of visualization. The more "tremendous" > the activity of throwing up is, the better it > is for you, because it will make the cloth > colorfast faster. Nice to know I've got that goin' for me. Occasionally he takes me to the brink of projectile. Standard 5 to 7 for enlightenment? > > > > 4. Now try to imagine the visualized enlightened > > > being speaking this and other dharma talks aloud, > > > over and over, but with the "visuals" present > > > this time. Notice how much better it is this way? > > > Notice the sense of cognitive dissonance or Tantric > > > "juxtaposition of opposites" you feel when trying > > > to reconcile the words with the image of the > > > speaker? > > > > > > That's how visualization is done. Try it...you > > > might like it. If you do, come back next week and > > > we'll teach you a visualization technique based > > > on the Tantric "juxtaposition of opposites" of > > > a professional editor who can't read well enough > > > to recognize the style of someone whose words she > > > has been reading for almost four years, or a film > > > reviewer who doesn't bother to see the films before > > > commenting on them. > > > > Will the editor be rooting around in fields looking > > for crop circles? > > Although "rooting around" is colorful, and > may evoke the correct species, I suspect that > her belief in crop circles as having unex- > plained origins is more a result of naivete > and laziness, like her belief that ed11 is a > woman and that Mel Gibson is a "Christian bigot." I was thinkin' truffle hound. http://snipurl.com/c3lem Kinder and gentler than a junkyard dog but equally single minded and tenacious. Many are said to have delightful arses, in a porcine kinda way. Some have even been known to wear lipstick. http://snipurl.com/c3q7q > > She just believes anything she reads. Actual > "rooting around" would require effort, both > physical and intellectual, and she doesn't > appear to "do that." She just trusts author- > ities: > > > Don't see any reason not to accept what ed11 > > says. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > The kids arrested included the sons of Fairfield's meditating mayor and > Board of Education member: > http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_11685597 > Oh, this is better than the most recent episodes of "Big Love" (actually, kinda the same premise as TMers in the TMO).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:10 PM, bob_brigante wrote: > > I can't believe anybody is so out of it that they would start a grow > > operation without being aware of utility co./cop cooperation in > > monitoring high electricity usage. Didn't these guys read one of the > > weed magazines while boning up on how to grow? (bought at a newstand > > with cash, not by subscription, of course: > > http://www.potsmokersnet.com/magazines/ ). > > Can you say infrared? A house was busted in Buda, a rural town south > of Austin. Ceiling to floor, every room filled with pot plants. Set > up by a computer wiz/control systems engineer. Everything was > automated. He just showed up about once every 10 days. He was busted > because of the tremendous amount of IR the house was giving off. A > very large haul. Took the heat off of the police and sheriffs being > busted for child porn, groping non-suspects and arranging dates in > chat rooms with underage girls and boys for a couple weeks. > * Too bad for him that he was not a physicist, he would have thought more about shielding his IR signature. About 30 years ago in Fairfield, I was hitchhiking and got a ride from a local non-ru farmer who had been busted for growing pot with airplane flyover evidence of a "plant signature" given off by the marijuana plants he had stuck in between his rows of corn -- I forget his sentence, but I believe he said about three years in the slam: ORNL Method May Detect Hidden Marijuana Gardens Many cannabis gardens, from which the illegal drug marijuana is obtained, can be spotted by inspectors on the ground or in airplanes. But some cannabis gardens escape optical detection because they are planted beneath a dense canopy of foliage in such areas as national forests. Scientists at ORNL may have a solution to this problem. In work sponsored by DOE and the U.S. Forestry Service, they have developed an advanced method for detecting hidden cannabis gardens. Their method "sniffs" trace vapors from the pot smoker's plant. The detection method uses a portable ion-trap mass spectrometer and personal computer, called a Multi-Threat Analyzer (MTA). In a field test in the summer of 1994 at a legal cannabis garden grown by the U.S. government for evaluation of detection technologies, ORNL researchers demonstrated that the MTA can detect and analyze trace levels of airborne organic vapors from mature cannabis plants under normal growing conditions. "The field test was very successful," says Marcus Wise, an MTA developer and scientist in ORNL's Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division. "The MTA detected a wide range of volatile organic compounds of various molecular weights. "It appears that the higher-molecular-weight compoundshydrocarbons called terpenes that are found in oils, resins, and balsamsmay be unique enough to the cannabis plant to be used as a signature for detection." In the test, Wise says, the MTA was operated in the field to determine if it could detect organic vapors from the cannabis plant in real time. Also, vapor samples were collected on sorbent tubes and later analyzed in the laboratory. The data collected and displayed as spectra by the MTA indicated that the organic compounds in the vapors were related to terpene. These findings at the garden site were confirmed in the laboratory by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry of the sorbent tube samples. "When we operated the MTA in a conventional mode at the garden," Wise says, "we found we could detect several molecules of organic compounds for every billion molecules of air in our samples. Newer ion traps, which can be operated in an advanced mode, will allow us to detect organic compounds at levels lower than one part per billion in air as they are emitted from cannabis plants." "Work is scheduled to continue on this project," Wise says, "The plan is to optimize MTA operating conditions for maximum sensitivity and to survey other vegetation for the presence of the target terpenes." In the late 1980s, Wise, Michelle Buchanan, and Mike Guerin, then of ORNL's Analytical Chemistry Division, developed new sample-handling equipment and computer software to enable an ion-trap mass spectrometer to sample and monitor air directly. Today this system can detect and measure trace levels of organic compounds in air, water, soil, and body fluid samples within minutes. Participants in the marijuana research include Wise from the Instrumentation Group; Jan Ma from the Analytical Methods Group; and Rob Smith from the Environmental Monitoring Group, all in ORNL's Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/tec.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote:
>
> The kids arrested included the sons of Fairfield's meditating mayor
and
> Board of Education member:
> http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_11685597
>
**
A 2005 FL post notes Justin's rep as a pothead:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/78855
If Federal charges are involved, these kids could face long sentences
for the volume involved ("Cultivation or possession of 1000kg or 1000
plants triggers a ten-year mandatory minimum"
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=2638b ). State charges
are only about 4 years, I think ( http://snipurl.com/c3inx
[norml_org] ), but if they did any money laundering to legitimize
their wealth, that's a separate Fed offense that can carry up to 20
years. On my last trip to Hawaii, I met a young gent who had just
done 6 years in Fed lockup (in the small, low-key Fed facility in
Honolulu, fortunately for him) for money laundering he did for a drug
dealer (who ratted him out when he got busted for sales), and on top
of that ridiculous sentence he did, the govt is billing him many
thousands of dollars for the cost of his incarceration!! Hardly seems
fair...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:10 PM, bob_brigante wrote: > I can't believe anybody is so out of it that they would start a grow > operation without being aware of utility co./cop cooperation in > monitoring high electricity usage. Didn't these guys read one of the > weed magazines while boning up on how to grow? (bought at a newstand > with cash, not by subscription, of course: > http://www.potsmokersnet.com/magazines/ ). Can you say infrared? A house was busted in Buda, a rural town south of Austin. Ceiling to floor, every room filled with pot plants. Set up by a computer wiz/control systems engineer. Everything was automated. He just showed up about once every 10 days. He was busted because of the tremendous amount of IR the house was giving off. A very large haul. Took the heat off of the police and sheriffs being busted for child porn, groping non-suspects and arranging dates in chat rooms with underage girls and boys for a couple weeks.
[FairfieldLife] Russian mutants
http://englishrussia.com/?cat=17
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy about Vaj
hats off to you emptybill! brilliant, entertaining and informative, all without sacrificing any of the three- i guess the reason Vaj doesn't post on here -all- the time is he is busy soliciting donations at the airport, and dancing on the sidewalk. cheers! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > Hey, I like Vaj. He and I have completely different takes on MMY, but > so what. Like the black and white cookie: world peace. And who is this > Randy Melzer anyway? Is he a Hare Krishna spy? How do we know for sure? > > > > > Hi Randy, > > Welcome to the group. And we know you're not really a Hare Krsna. > > Peter was just making an insider joke here (but not at your expense) so > don't take offence. In reality, Vaj is our actual Hare Krsna on the > forum and most of us know this by now. Don't get too stirred up here > when he attacks Maharishi and TM. He's just doing his job as he was > instructed and as he agreed. > > > > Vaj came here at the invitation of Kirk Bernhardt after they met at a > Dzogchen retreat. Because he spoke the language of Dzogchen and Tantra, > Kirk thought Vaj was a Tantric-Dzogchen practitioner. Since Kirk was > getting into conceptual tussles with some people here, he decided he > could use someone with a similar background to back him up in > discussions. So he invited Vaj to the group to shake everyone up > starting with "Hey, look at my little friend, Vaj, curled up here in > my travel bag. Isn't he really cool man? Don't worry! He really > likes being with people. He'll just slither up around your neck and > wrap around it with a flickering kiss. You'll be like Lord Shiva > wearing his garland of serpents." So he talked and people were > willing to listen for a while, entertained by the little whispering Vaj. > > What Kirk didn't realize was that Vaj was not the strident Buddhist > he appeared to be. Vaj was actually a Gaudiya Vaishnava disciple of one > of the Hare Krsna ritvik-gurus who was still active here in America. Vaj > was performing a task requested by his initiating guru, Srila > Vijayadarshana dasa Goswami. The request was for Vaj to follow in the > lead of prior Vaishnava followers to disrupt and refute the demonic > "Mayavadins", of whom they considered Maharishi to be the > biggest. (Mayavadin is a Vaishnava term denoting someone believing > everything is illusion.) > > The basic technique of this practice is for the opponent (Vaj) to admix > with the forum as a person with similar experiences. After people become > comfortable with his flickering tongue, he then gradually introduces > doubts and rebuttals from a tradition that is somewhat similar > (Buddhist) but which criticizes the one in which he is temporarily > positioned (Advaita Vedanta). The sole purpose is to unlatch people from > their familiarity with their own experiences (i.e. introducing doubt > about everything) and then offering them a variant framework for > understanding. The key here is not to be too precise but rather give > generic notions of "superior" states and stations of spiritual > development that are unavailable, except from another tradition. > > The ironic premise of it all is hilarious. Serpentine Vaj is actually > using an anti-cult deprogramming technique to free us from ourselves. > First by trying to displace our belief in our direct experience with > inveterate doubt (doubt for its own sake) and then secondly by offering > us a way out through another path (any other path). Isn't it amazing > what techniques the Hare Krsna devotees have learned from their > anti-cult opponents? > > So this is how Vaj developed and grew here on the forum. Vaj was just a > little flickering coil at first but over time has become an > Anti-Maharishi first responder, gigantic and ponderous a hulk of > vituperative antagonism. > > However, please don't think badly about Vaj and his task here on > FFL. He really loves us. He just wants to separate us from our delusion > about illusion meaning about Maharishi and TM. > > He vowed it to his guru you know like words of honor between a > knight and his liege lord. > > > > Samaya Jah Jah Jah >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Vaj
--- On Tue, 2/17/09, nablusoss1008 wrote: > From: nablusoss1008 > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Vaj > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 5:40 PM > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > wrote: > > > > snip > > Like the black and white cookie: world peace. And who is > this Randy > Melzer anyway? Is he a Hare Krishna spy? How do we know for > sure? Maybe > he's Nabs? > > "No more soup for you !" The soup Nazi! Noo! "Next!" > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
> I'm so proud of them. I mean it. I am also very sorry if they get >alot of > time. Weed is from God/dess. She should not be denied those who >love >her. > The news said it was the most sophisticated grow set up they had >seen >in > that county and really good stuff. At least Maharishi kids are good >at what > they do. I would have liked to get my hands on some of that. I >wonder what > strain they were growing, it looked a good bit like Kush. Definitely >Indica. > Oh, regulate it like a real drug. Marijuana Addicts Anonymous: http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/
RE: [FairfieldLife] Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
The kids arrested included the sons of Fairfield's meditating mayor and Board of Education member: http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_11685597
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Films I have not seen
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:14 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: Yes, I agree that Million Dollar Baby was overrated but, boy, I sure enjoyed seeing Hillary Swank...and I love the Cinderella Story of her career: getting fired from 90210 one day and then coming back to win not one but two Oscars... Well, she may be the greatest actress ever, and it's may be just a function of how shallow I am, but I can't get past that surgically- altered face. There's surgery and then there's surgery. She looks like an android. "There will be blood" was fabulous. Funnily, the best scene in the movie was cut out. It is on the Extras, though, and it is where Daneil tells Mr. Sunday that his sun is a lunatic and asks if he, the father, could please stop bothering him. great stuff. Sal
[FairfieldLife] To Randy about Vaj
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > Hey, I like Vaj. He and I have completely different takes on MMY, but so what. Like the black and white cookie: world peace. And who is this Randy Melzer anyway? Is he a Hare Krishna spy? How do we know for sure? Hi Randy, Welcome to the group. And we know you're not really a Hare Krsna. Peter was just making an insider joke here (but not at your expense) so don't take offence. In reality, Vaj is our actual Hare Krsna on the forum and most of us know this by now. Don't get too stirred up here when he attacks Maharishi and TM. He's just doing his job as he was instructed and as he agreed. Vaj came here at the invitation of Kirk Bernhardt after they met at a Dzogchen retreat. Because he spoke the language of Dzogchen and Tantra, Kirk thought Vaj was a Tantric-Dzogchen practitioner. Since Kirk was getting into conceptual tussles with some people here, he decided he could use someone with a similar background to back him up in discussions. So he invited Vaj to the group to shake everyone up starting with "Hey, look at my little friend, Vaj, curled up here in my travel bag. Isn't he really cool man? Don't worry! He really likes being with people. He'll just slither up around your neck and wrap around it with a flickering kiss. You'll be like Lord Shiva wearing his garland of serpents." So he talked and people were willing to listen for a while, entertained by the little whispering Vaj. What Kirk didn't realize was that Vaj was not the strident Buddhist he appeared to be. Vaj was actually a Gaudiya Vaishnava disciple of one of the Hare Krsna ritvik-gurus who was still active here in America. Vaj was performing a task requested by his initiating guru, Srila Vijayadarshana dasa Goswami. The request was for Vaj to follow in the lead of prior Vaishnava followers to disrupt and refute the demonic "Mayavadins", of whom they considered Maharishi to be the biggest. (Mayavadin is a Vaishnava term denoting someone believing everything is illusion.) The basic technique of this practice is for the opponent (Vaj) to admix with the forum as a person with similar experiences. After people become comfortable with his flickering tongue, he then gradually introduces doubts and rebuttals from a tradition that is somewhat similar (Buddhist) but which criticizes the one in which he is temporarily positioned (Advaita Vedanta). The sole purpose is to unlatch people from their familiarity with their own experiences (i.e. introducing doubt about everything) and then offering them a variant framework for understanding. The key here is not to be too precise but rather give generic notions of "superior" states and stations of spiritual development that are unavailable, except from another tradition. The ironic premise of it all is hilarious. Serpentine Vaj is actually using an anti-cult deprogramming technique to free us from ourselves. First by trying to displace our belief in our direct experience with inveterate doubt (doubt for its own sake) and then secondly by offering us a way out through another path (any other path). Isn't it amazing what techniques the Hare Krsna devotees have learned from their anti-cult opponents? So this is how Vaj developed and grew here on the forum. Vaj was just a little flickering coil at first but over time has become an Anti-Maharishi first responder, gigantic and ponderous a hulk of vituperative antagonism. However, please don't think badly about Vaj and his task here on FFL. He really loves us. He just wants to separate us from our delusion about illusion meaning about Maharishi and TM. He vowed it to his guru you know like words of honor between a knight and his liege lord. Samaya Jah Jah Jah
[FairfieldLife] Hillary Defends Islam....
Weasel Zippers: Hillary Clinton Defends Islam, Slams Christianity for Being Violent* http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > Hey, I like Vaj. He and I have completely different takes on MMY, but so what. Like the black and white cookie: world peace. And who is this Randy Melzer anyway? Is he a Hare Krishna spy? How do we know for sure? Hi Randy, Welcome to the group. And we know you're not really a Hare Krsna. Peter was just making an insider joke here (but not at your expense) so don't take offence. In reality, Vaj is our actual Hare Krsna on the forum and most of us know this by now. Don't get too stirred up here when he attacks Maharishi and TM. He's just doing his job as he was instructed and as he agreed. Vaj came here at the invitation of Kirk Bernhardt after they met at a Dzogchen retreat. Because he spoke the language of Dzogchen and Tantra, Kirk thought Vaj was a Tantric-Dzogchen practitioner. Since Kirk was getting into conceptual tussles with some people here, he decided he could use someone with a similar background to back him up in discussions. So he invited Vaj to the group to shake everyone up starting with "Hey, look at my little friend, Vaj, curled up here in my travel bag. Isn't he really cool man? Don't worry! He really likes being with people. He'll just slither up around your neck and wrap around it with a flickering kiss. You'll be like Lord Shiva wearing his garland of serpents." So he talked and people were willing to listen for a while, entertained by the little whispering Vaj. What Kirk didn't realize was that Vaj was not the strident Buddhist he appeared to be. Vaj was actually a Gaudiya Vaishnava disciple of one of the Hare Krsna ritvik-gurus who was still active here in America. Vaj was performing a task requested by his initiating guru, Srila Vijayadarshana dasa Goswami. The request was for Vaj to follow in the lead of prior Vaishnava followers to disrupt and refute the demonic "Mayavadins", of whom they considered Maharishi to be the biggest. (Mayavadin is a Vaishnava term denoting someone believing everything is illusion.) The basic technique of this practice is for the opponent (Vaj) to admix with the forum as a person with similar experiences. After people become comfortable with his flickering tongue, he then gradually introduces doubts and rebuttals from a tradition that is somewhat similar (Buddhist) but which criticizes the one in which he is temporarily positioned (Advaita Vedanta). The sole purpose is to unlatch people from their familiarity with their own experiences (i.e. introducing doubt about everything) and then offering them a variant framework for understanding. The key here is not to be too precise but rather give generic notions of "superior" states and stations of spiritual development that are unavailable, except from another tradition. The ironic premise of it all is hilarious. Serpentine Vaj is actually using an anti-cult deprogramming technique to free us from ourselves. First by trying to displace our belief in our direct with inveterate doubt (doubt for its own sake) and then secondly by offering us a way out through another path (any other path). Isn't it amazing what techniques the Hare Krsna devotees have learned from their anti-cult opponents? So this is how Vaj developed and grew here on the forum. Vaj was just a little flickering coil at first but over time has become an Anti-Maharishi first responder, gigantic and ponderous a hulk of vituperative antagonism. However, please don't think badly about Vaj and his task here on FFL. He really loves us. He just wants to separate us from our delusion about illusion meaning about Maharishi and TM. He vowed it to his guru you know like words of honor between a knight and his liege lord. Samaya Jah Jah Jah
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" wrote: > > http://livinginsmallsizes.com/2009/02/13/several-maharishi-graduates- busted-for-growing-pot/ > > http://is.gd/jOCY > *** They shoulda used LED grow lites, kind of pricey, but good for the environment, and utility co weasels won't rat you out: http://snipurl.com/c39pe [www_indooragriculture_com]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why we don't matter a whit...
Just like the scientists you are thinking humans are somehow special. But if we look throughout nature we see how much it mirrors itself in so many forms. There are probably millions of human like species throughout this galaxy since the same physical laws that exist here will exist on other planets. Plus they wouldn't necessarily have to be carbon based life forms. They also might exist in a frequency range invisible to our eyes (like the alien peering over your shoulder right now John, reading this message). :-D John wrote: > Maybe these planets are being kept as potential garden spots for human > forms to populate. In the vedic texts, we read beings called the > prajapatis, or cosmic executives, who are considered to be the > progenetors of humankind on earth. > > Their mission, whether they they like or not, is to populate the entire > universe with humans. So, it appears that they've got a lot of work to > do. > > Nonetheless, the lingering question remains: how do they travel the > various sectors of the universe in spite of the known maximum speed > limit which is the speed of light. Or, it could be possible to travel > above the speed of light, or simultaneously which is so far beyond the > present scientific knowledge or capability. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > >> There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, >> > a > >> US conference has heard. >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm >> >> Isn't it always interesting that the scientists think the other >> "earth-like" planets could only harbor simple lifeforms. Sorta vain, >> > I > >> think. I mean they might actually harbor more advanced lifeforms >> > than > >> humans. Oh but we can't be thinking that can we? >> >> > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" wrote: > > http://livinginsmallsizes.com/2009/02/13/several-maharishi- graduates-busted-for-growing-pot/ > > http://is.gd/jOCY > *** I can't believe anybody is so out of it that they would start a grow operation without being aware of utility co./cop cooperation in monitoring high electricity usage. Didn't these guys read one of the weed magazines while boning up on how to grow? (bought at a newstand with cash, not by subscription, of course: http://www.potsmokersnet.com/magazines/ ). Even with the new harsher penalties, Canada is still the place for grow ops, and with the larglely unpoliced border, anybody foolish enough to be in the drug biz faces much lighter penalties: http://snipurl.com/c38mw [www2_canada_com] They still might do OK if they only face state charges, since Cal has to reduce its prison population by 1/3, 50,000 inmates, so they won't do their full term. Federal charges? Fuhgeddaboutit...your ass will do almost all the time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why we don't matter a whit...
Maybe these planets are being kept as potential garden spots for human forms to populate. In the vedic texts, we read beings called the prajapatis, or cosmic executives, who are considered to be the progenetors of humankind on earth. Their mission, whether they they like or not, is to populate the entire universe with humans. So, it appears that they've got a lot of work to do. Nonetheless, the lingering question remains: how do they travel the various sectors of the universe in spite of the known maximum speed limit which is the speed of light. Or, it could be possible to travel above the speed of light, or simultaneously which is so far beyond the present scientific knowledge or capability. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, a > US conference has heard. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm > > Isn't it always interesting that the scientists think the other > "earth-like" planets could only harbor simple lifeforms. Sorta vain, I > think. I mean they might actually harbor more advanced lifeforms than > humans. Oh but we can't be thinking that can we? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > But you used the term "world view," which you should > > > > > know is incorrect. > > > > > > > > Not to me. The big leap is the buy-in concerning > > > > his interpretation of the meditation experiences. > > > > His world view is that everything in the world is > > > > an expression of the absolute. > > > > > > And that's why you consider his teaching on the > > > nature and mechanics of consciousness a "world > > > view"?? That's pretty thin soup, Curtis. > > > > Let's see if Wiki can thicken it: > > Let me just interject: to say "Everything in the > world is an expression of the absolute" is virtually > meaningless, like saying "Everything in the world is > part of the universe." It contains the ontological assumption of an "absolute." This assumption lies at the core of Maharishi's teaching. Although I am inclined to agree with you concerning the content of the claim, the phrase is not meaningless or an equivalent to a tautology. It is pregnant with implications and beliefs. That's what I mean by "thin > soup." So what? As long as you are directing this phrase "thin soup" to Maharishi. I was repeating a summation of his world view, it is not a view I hold. > > > > A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the > > German word Weltanschauung (De-Weltanschauung.ogg > [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] > > (help·info)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is > > the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental > > to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world > > perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and > > beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and > interacts > > with it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as > > the translated form world outlook or world view. > > > > Sounds right to me. > > I'd call MMY's teaching about nature and mechanics > of consciousness a *metaphysical* system, not a > system through which I interpret and interact with > the world. That's a whole 'nother system, which has > nothing to do with MMY's. That is interesting. I don't know how you separate these practically but I'll take your word that you do. > > Anyway, I get the distinction you made. How > > would you sum up Maharishi's world view? > > Naive Utopianism overlaid with socially > conservative principles. I would consider that his social POV that stems from his "world view" which you consider metaphysical. Maharishi injected his metaphysics into every topic I heard him discuss. > > > I can't speak to how much it is a part of your > > identity compared to mine. I think anyone > > serious about the growth of their consciousness > > enough to do full program twice a day is pretty > > identified with it. > > I don't do full program and I'm not always regular. > The point is that I take time out twice a day to > do it and rarely think about it otherwise (except > when I come here, and often not even then depending > on what the current topics are; FFL is recreation > for me, intellectual play, not a serious pursuit). > > I'm not ever gonna do any more than I'm doing > now. So I guess you could say I'm not all that > "serious" about the growth of my consciousness; > it's not something I'm focused on or concerned > about. Whatever happens as a result of my practice, > happens. > > And I guess you could say, come to think of it, > that there *is* one point of interaction, or at > least intersection, between my commitment to MMY's > metaphysical system and the world, in that I think > it would be a better world if more people were > doing TM. That's probably where whatever > emotional investment I have lies, but I'm sure not > *doing* anything about it, so it can't be that > deep. It is interesting to see how people articulate their relationship with the teaching. It is also kind of personal so I appreciate you discussing yours. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Films I have not seen
shempmcgurk wrote: > "There will be blood" was fabulous. Funnily, the best scene in the > movie was cut out. It is on the Extras, though, and it is where > Daneil tells Mr. Sunday that his sun is a lunatic and asks if he, the > father, could please stop bothering him. great stuff. Great film about the evils of capitalism. BTW, for those with Showtime and haven't seen the movie it's on tonight. I also hear that "International" is another great film about the evils of capitalism. Supposed to go see it tomorrow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > But you used the term "world view," which you should > > > > know is incorrect. > > > > > > Not to me. The big leap is the buy-in concerning > > > his interpretation of the meditation experiences. > > > His world view is that everything in the world is > > > an expression of the absolute. > > > > And that's why you consider his teaching on the > > nature and mechanics of consciousness a "world > > view"?? That's pretty thin soup, Curtis. > > Let's see if Wiki can thicken it: Let me just interject: to say "Everything in the world is an expression of the absolute" is virtually meaningless, like saying "Everything in the world is part of the universe." That's what I mean by "thin soup." So what? > > A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the > German word Weltanschauung (De-Weltanschauung.ogg [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] > (help·info)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is > the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental > to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world > perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and > beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts > with it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as > the translated form world outlook or world view. > > Sounds right to me. I'd call MMY's teaching about nature and mechanics of consciousness a *metaphysical* system, not a system through which I interpret and interact with the world. That's a whole 'nother system, which has nothing to do with MMY's. Anyway, I get the distinction you made. How > would you sum up Maharishi's world view? Naive Utopianism overlaid with socially conservative principles. I can't speak to how much it is a part of your > identity compared to mine. I think anyone > serious about the growth of their consciousness > enough to do full program twice a day is pretty > identified with it. I don't do full program and I'm not always regular. The point is that I take time out twice a day to do it and rarely think about it otherwise (except when I come here, and often not even then depending on what the current topics are; FFL is recreation for me, intellectual play, not a serious pursuit). I'm not ever gonna do any more than I'm doing now. So I guess you could say I'm not all that "serious" about the growth of my consciousness; it's not something I'm focused on or concerned about. Whatever happens as a result of my practice, happens. And I guess you could say, come to think of it, that there *is* one point of interaction, or at least intersection, between my commitment to MMY's metaphysical system and the world, in that I think it would be a better world if more people were doing TM. That's probably where whatever emotional investment I have lies, but I'm sure not *doing* anything about it, so it can't be that deep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
lol- precisely Sal, and why is Randy's opinion so important to YOU? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > > Vaj, > > You again have invalidated me and people like me with good > > experiences with TM. You mentioned above that you don't really buy > > that there are people who have found everything that Maharishi > > promised through TM, even though they believe they have. Again you > > are entitled to your opinion, but guess what. I don' just "Believe" > > that I have experienced everything that Maharishi promised, I have > > actually experienced it! Why can't you accept that You > > inability to accept this show how closed minded and opinionated you > > are. I don't need to go the more "positive" TM forums, I can take > > criticism and negativity toward TM and the organization. I may even > > be the first person to acknowledge some of it. But when someone like > > me comes along and says "hey look TM works for me", you can't accept > > it. Thats my point > > > Whether he can or can't, Randy, so what? > Why is Vaj's opinion so important to you? > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
no doubt like the seed of a plant, the uncovering of the atman as a progressive experience can grow and grow and grow, revealing more power and wonder and capability as it is uncovered, whether defined by the Maharishi, the Buddha, or any other fully enlightened being. once the process begins, the teacher will bring out that aspect of enlightenment most useful to his/her students. for the Maharishi it was giving his students enough of a framework to get started, with the certainty that as their thirst for further knowledge grew, they would discover it appropriately. this is the sad and deluded reality of Vaj, that knowledge is to be hoarded, and ascribed to specific teachers and cults and religious sects, and only by belonging to such spiritual splinters can one gain true knowledge, true enlightenment. his belief system is mere brand loyalty, as shallow as those who practice it while shopping at the mall, only applied to spiritual advancement. oh well, better luck next time, Vaj! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" wrote: > > --MMY's "Unity" could be a quantum leap beyond Neo-Advaitin > Enlightenment. > Buddhist Enlightenment is probably a quantum leap beyond MMY's Unity; > but few people have attained that. I doubt that Vaj's Guru Norbu > Rinpoche is fully Enlightened. > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > By TM criteria, he is enlightened. By Buddhist criteria he is not > > fully enlightened. > > > > Are you familiar with the Bodhisattva path? > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:47 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > > > he doesn't claim to be enlightened, and yet, let's you and all of > > > his other followers refer to him as His Holiness? if he isn't > > > especially holy, why allow himself to be called that? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
in other words Randy, Vaj invalidates what you said, that the Maharishi has provided you with everything that he promised, and now Vaj says he didn't say that, that instead you are confused. its simple to Vaj, Randy, and it should be simple to you; all of us are wrong (eight posters at last count who have explicitly called this charlatan on his fundamentalism, and wondered aloud what he is doing here), and Vaj, the almightly, always-righty Vaj, is right! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > > Vaj, > > You again have invalidated me and people like me with good > > experiences with TM. You mentioned above that you don't really buy > > that there are people who have found everything that Maharishi > > promised through TM, even though they believe they have. Again you > > are entitled to your opinion, but guess what. I don' just "Believe" > > that I have experienced everything that Maharishi promised, I have > > actually experienced it! Why can't you accept that You > > inability to accept this show how closed minded and opinionated you > > are. I don't need to go the more "positive" TM forums, I can take > > criticism and negativity toward TM and the organization. I may even > > be the first person to acknowledge some of it. But when someone like > > me comes along and says "hey look TM works for me", you can't accept > > it. Thats my point > > Then you need to re-read what I wrote, I'm glad it works for you and > it's great that you enjoy your experiences--and no you're not first > person to acknowledge problems, nor will you be the last. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Scientology blames 9/11 on psychiatrists
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:38 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: > Oh, please, let's not let facts get in the way of a great hypothesis! > It ruins the fun to reveal that al-Zawahiri is an eye surgeon and not a > psychiatrist. > > Let's see if we can put together a list of cults and their assignment > of cause to various effects: > > - Mass-murders at a McDonald's of several decades ago: according to the > Hari Krishna's, the billions of cows/cattle killed by same caused this > karmic backlash (makes sense to me!) > > - 9/11: according to the Scientologists, caused by psychiatrists (hey, > I'll go along with that). > > - 9/11: according to Pat Robertson, caused by homosexuals and abortions > (or something like that). > > - Levi Butler's murder: according to Maharishi, caused by imbalance in > society at large. > > - 9/11 Caused by Princess Diana and Jon Benet Ramsey flying on unicorns > through the Twin Towers (probably the best...google it if you don't > believe me!) > > - 9/11 was caused by Hillary and Britney Spears. > 9/11 was caused by bad weather on 9/10. I had been told that something very special was going to happen on 9/10 and was disappointed that it didn't happen. When I turned on the TV on 9/11 I saw the re-run of the plane going into the first tower and said "Cool. So that's what they had planned".
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal wrote: > > Remember, Maharishi School students are the best and the brightest. > They graduate and go to the very best schools. Of course we'd expect > them to do business on a very large scale. The $180,000 cash seized > was probably just money they planned to give back to the school in > donations, perhaps to help pay part of one student's semester tuition. > > The undoing of the former students is of course predictable. They > used too much power. This is a very big sin. Using too much power > violates the laws of green and sustainable living. The funny thing is that with all their hoopla about what a huge operation is was, it was only 3 rooms in a private residence. This sounds like typical law enforcement grandstanding to justify spending our tax dollars on a futile "war." Legalize it, tax it, and spend the money on real problems. It is a freaking weed that can grow anywhere, we aren't gunna stop it. But we have turned a psychological or medical issue into a legal one at tremendous expense and have ruined families by sending pot dealers to jail instead of a more realistic, responsible drug policy. Considering that in Cali, this weed might have been headed to medical dispensaries, the idea that they face serious hard time makes me sick. How did they get > as big as they did? Well, pot uses up carbon dioxide and produces > oxygen. This is seen by followers of the Church of the Green House as> vital to keep Fairfield from being inundated by the Gulf of Mexico. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
On Feb 17, 2009, at 8:27 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: >> And that's why you consider his teaching on the >> nature and mechanics of consciousness a "world >> view"?? That's pretty thin soup, Curtis. > > Let's see if Wiki can thicken it: > > A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the > German word Weltanschauung (De-Weltanschauung.ogg > [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] > (help·info)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is > the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental > to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world > perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and > beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts > with it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as > the translated form world outlook or world view. > > Sounds right to me. Anyway, I get the distinction you made. How > would you sum up Maharishi's world view? I think I got the most > important piece right. You nailed it. Very similar/the same as the Sanskrit "darshana" or "drsti", "way of seeing", "thought frameworld", "View"; also "loka"--all used in Maharishi Vedic Science.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--MMY's "Unity" could be a quantum leap beyond Neo-Advaitin Enlightenment. Buddhist Enlightenment is probably a quantum leap beyond MMY's Unity; but few people have attained that. I doubt that Vaj's Guru Norbu Rinpoche is fully Enlightened. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > By TM criteria, he is enlightened. By Buddhist criteria he is not > fully enlightened. > > Are you familiar with the Bodhisattva path? > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:47 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > > he doesn't claim to be enlightened, and yet, let's you and all of > > his other followers refer to him as His Holiness? if he isn't > > especially holy, why allow himself to be called that? >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
On Feb 17, 2009, at 7:12 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > in other words Randy, Vaj will not take you at your word when you > say your practice of TM has been everything that the Maharishi has > promised. he will however take the merest hearsay, if negative about > the practice of TM, and state it as fact here. Dawn, I hate to break it to ya kid, but you don't really speak for me, nor is what you state typically what I'm saying, what I feel or what I intend. You're responses seem to me to be emotional reactions from the attachment you have to certain ideas and/or states of mind. > he ends his post with a serious admonition about the damage TM does > to its practitioners, while faithfully remaining silent regarding > the genocide and cultural destruction wrought upon the countries > presided over by "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama, and other highly > placed Buddhists. Dawn, crack a book every now and then, ok? The Dalai Lama didn't invade Tibet, the Chinese did. The Dalai Lama is not Superman nor was the Maharishi nor was Guru Dev. It's also a false assumption of yours that I was speaking solely about "damage TM does to its practitioners". That's not what I said. I realize it's common among TM TB's to try to mischaracterize what people say or mean and then try to use that mischaracterization to attempt to convince others of your errant argument or game. I realize that it's important for you to attempt to demonize me and to poison the well of opinion so others may worship at your false scapegoat and image. That's fine, because it simply shows me that honesty and truth aren't as important as your attachment to states of mind and your beliefs in those states of mind. It shows your true colors. And just because you have company in such game-playing does not make it any right either.
[FairfieldLife] Why we don't matter a whit...
There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, a US conference has heard. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm Isn't it always interesting that the scientists think the other "earth-like" planets could only harbor simple lifeforms. Sorta vain, I think. I mean they might actually harbor more advanced lifeforms than humans. Oh but we can't be thinking that can we?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > But you used the term "world view," which you should > > > know is incorrect. > > > > Not to me. The big leap is the buy-in concerning > > his interpretation of the meditation experiences. > > His world view is that everything in the world is > > an expression of the absolute. > > And that's why you consider his teaching on the > nature and mechanics of consciousness a "world > view"?? That's pretty thin soup, Curtis. Let's see if Wiki can thicken it: A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung (De-Weltanschauung.ogg [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] (help·info)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as the translated form world outlook or world view. Sounds right to me. Anyway, I get the distinction you made. How would you sum up Maharishi's world view? I think I got the most important piece right. > > > > > As far > > > > as how emotionally invested your are we probably > > > > disagree, but who cares right? > > > > > > Forgot to comment on this. I care, because "emotional > > > investment" is a putdown in this context. > > > > Is it for you? I am emotionally invested in my > > POV concerning Maharishi's teachings. It was hard > > earned and I am proud of it. I think denying any > > emotional investment in something so obviously > > important in your life seems a bit slippery. That > > is why I mentioned it. > > Uh-huh. Except I didn't deny any emotional > investment in it. I said my investment was > "much less emotional than intellectual and > experiential." > > (Sheesh. Why bother to write carefully when > people are such careless readers?) Must be tough. Again I get your point and "how much" is a personal view. I'll accept yours and take back the "slippery" charge. > > You had a *lot* more invested in TM than I > ever did--your lifestyle, your career, your > very identity. It stands to reason you'd have > considerable emotional investment. At the time I dropped out it was no longer a career, but the rest is true. I can't speak to how much it is a part of your identity compared to mine. I think anyone serious about the growth of their consciousness enough to do full program twice a day is pretty identified with it. Being fulltime for so many years did saturate me with the whole thing and I've revived a pretty healthy interest here in the last few years. But OTHO you have decades more years invested than I had, so who is to say who is more identified with the teaching? > > > For you to consider that he may be wrong > > about human consciousness would have profound > > emotional implications due to years of > > commitment to them. > > You know, I really don't think so, because > what would lead me to consider his ideas wrong > would be ideas I found *more valid*, and that > would be exhilarating--just as my 35 years of > commitment to a materialist viewpoint didn't > cause me any emotional upset when I encountered > ideas about enlightenment and found them to be > more valid; it was exhilarating to drop the old > ones and take up the new ones. Agreed. That is what it was like for me. It does have emotional ramifications, but if you feel as though you are expanding your viewpoint the positive aspects of the growth dominate. So I guess this would be true for you too if you ever decided that another view served you better or was more true. > > (And no, whether I stick to MMY's ideas or find > new, better ones, I'm VERY unlikely to go back > to the old materialist ideas. If there's one > idea you could say I'm a "true believer" in, > it's that materialism is an inadequate frame of > reference.) I don't know if it is ever possible to go back to a world view without the changes that we go through to get there. I'm not sure that I have an example of this in my own life, so I really can't say for sure. Where I am on most topics is a long way from where I have ever been in my past, and I hope I can say the same thing years from now! >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
On Feb 17, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > Vaj, > You again have invalidated me and people like me with good > experiences with TM. You mentioned above that you don't really buy > that there are people who have found everything that Maharishi > promised through TM, even though they believe they have. Again you > are entitled to your opinion, but guess what. I don' just "Believe" > that I have experienced everything that Maharishi promised, I have > actually experienced it! Why can't you accept that You > inability to accept this show how closed minded and opinionated you > are. I don't need to go the more "positive" TM forums, I can take > criticism and negativity toward TM and the organization. I may even > be the first person to acknowledge some of it. But when someone like > me comes along and says "hey look TM works for me", you can't accept > it. Thats my point Then you need to re-read what I wrote, I'm glad it works for you and it's great that you enjoy your experiences--and no you're not first person to acknowledge problems, nor will you be the last.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: Vaj, You again have invalidated me and people like me with good experiences with TM. You mentioned above that you don't really buy that there are people who have found everything that Maharishi promised through TM, even though they believe they have. Again you are entitled to your opinion, but guess what. I don' just "Believe" that I have experienced everything that Maharishi promised, I have actually experienced it! Why can't you accept that You inability to accept this show how closed minded and opinionated you are. I don't need to go the more "positive" TM forums, I can take criticism and negativity toward TM and the organization. I may even be the first person to acknowledge some of it. But when someone like me comes along and says "hey look TM works for me", you can't accept it. Thats my point Whether he can or can't, Randy, so what? Why is Vaj's opinion so important to you? Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
"reminds me of that show on TV, 60 Minutes, always going after the small fry, but as for institionalized corruption and failure, they turn a blind eye." Correction: 60 Minutes takes on many big stories --- On Wed, 2/18/09, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: in other words Randy, Vaj will not take you at your word when you say your practice of TM has been everything that the Maharishi has promised. he will however take the merest hearsay, if negative about the practice of TM, and state it as fact here. he ends his post with a serious admonition about the damage TM does to its practitioners, while faithfully remaining silent regarding the genocide and cultural destruction wrought upon the countries presided over by "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama, and other highly placed Buddhists. reminds me of that show on TV, 60 Minutes, always going after the small fry, but as for institionalized corruption and failure, they turn a blind eye. having said all of that, i am pleased to hear about your success with TM. as i have said on here before, it is those who have done TM the least who criticize it the most. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > >> What post or posts are you referring to Randy? > > > > I am referring to any and all posts where you seem to indicate that > > TM has no validity. > > I've never said that Randy. I do and will respond to posts as I please > and if they contain inaccurate information on any number of subjects, > I may respond, as I please with what I believe to be true. It's > important to me, and I hope it is to you as well, to see that > historical record is set straight and that means if I feel like > responding to some misinformed notion or casually passed down myth, I > may post what I believe is correct. I will not lie for you, sorry. If > that bothers, you, then you might want to avoid my posts or this list > then, but that's your decision Randy. > > There are TM lists which say only nice things, like the Fairfield > Kiosk site. That sounds like it might be more up your alley. > > > You either say it or infer it very often. > > Look Vaj, I don't want to seem like a "TM is the answer" robot. I'm > > not. But after practicing it for 38 years, I can say without > > hesitation that the depth of my experience is profound and therefore > > to me, TM is as valid a practice as any other spiritual program, and > > at least for me, better. So this is why I am tired of you constantly > > trying to prove that it is less than Buddhism, tantra etc. You are > > entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but at the same time why > > can't you respect the experiences and opinions of those of us who > > have found everything that Maharishi promised through it? > > > Well I don't think that's the issue. People write things. I respond. > If what they say is false, I may respond with the sweet or sour truth. > If people don't like what I say, they should respond without ad > hominem and debate the question at hand, but they should have some > idea what they're talking about, not uncritically acquired beliefs. > > And I'm glad TM worked for you, I think that's great. I also, as I've > said before, had relatively good experiences with TM (but I think you > might have missed that post). I also shared what some of them were. I > really don't buy that there are people who "found everything that > Maharishi promised through [TM]", but I do believe there are people > who do believe that. I have just not seen evidence that shows me, > based on my own intuition and experience, that this is the case. I am > open to the fact that I may be wrong. > > The other issue is one of damage to people. I won't go into this in > detail, but for me, it's really the crux of the matter. To even > mention it here, is to set off a firestorm of ad hominem and negative > posts. But if it does happen (it has) it should be able to be > discussed openly and freely so that others need not suffer. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > But you used the term "world view," which you should > > know is incorrect. > > Not to me. The big leap is the buy-in concerning > his interpretation of the meditation experiences. > His world view is that everything in the world is > an expression of the absolute. And that's why you consider his teaching on the nature and mechanics of consciousness a "world view"?? That's pretty thin soup, Curtis. > > As far > > > as how emotionally invested your are we probably > > > disagree, but who cares right? > > > > Forgot to comment on this. I care, because "emotional > > investment" is a putdown in this context. > > Is it for you? I am emotionally invested in my > POV concerning Maharishi's teachings. It was hard > earned and I am proud of it. I think denying any > emotional investment in something so obviously > important in your life seems a bit slippery. That > is why I mentioned it. Uh-huh. Except I didn't deny any emotional investment in it. I said my investment was "much less emotional than intellectual and experiential." (Sheesh. Why bother to write carefully when people are such careless readers?) You had a *lot* more invested in TM than I ever did--your lifestyle, your career, your very identity. It stands to reason you'd have considerable emotional investment. > For you to consider that he may be wrong > about human consciousness would have profound > emotional implications due to years of > commitment to them. You know, I really don't think so, because what would lead me to consider his ideas wrong would be ideas I found *more valid*, and that would be exhilarating--just as my 35 years of commitment to a materialist viewpoint didn't cause me any emotional upset when I encountered ideas about enlightenment and found them to be more valid; it was exhilarating to drop the old ones and take up the new ones. (And no, whether I stick to MMY's ideas or find new, better ones, I'm VERY unlikely to go back to the old materialist ideas. If there's one idea you could say I'm a "true believer" in, it's that materialism is an inadequate frame of reference.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
> > The undoing of the former students is of course predictable. They > used too much power. This is a very big sin. Using too much power > violates the laws of green and sustainable living. How did they get > as big as they did? Well, pot uses up carbon dioxide and produces > oxygen. This is seen by followers of the Church of the Green House as > vital to keep Fairfield from being inundated by the Gulf of Mexico. > Thanks, someone needed to say that. 'Church of the Green House'. Following the laws of green and sustainable living? They also have a spiritual practice they do, like a meditation? Do they meet, have a meeting place? Sort of related: local Sierra Club Leopold Group is hosting this lively documentary on how folks are talking about climate change Tuesday, Feb. 17 at 7:30 pm at the Sondheim Center Theatre. It's free to all.
[FairfieldLife] Netflix CEO: Tax Me More!
A CEO who isn't whining about possible higher taxes for a change: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 21 00:00:00 2009 474 messages as of (UTC) Wed Feb 18 00:14:38 2009 40 TurquoiseB 37 authfriend 32 enlightened_dawn11 25 Vaj 24 sparaig 21 Bhairitu 19 Arhata Osho 16 nablusoss1008 16 curtisdeltablues 16 "grate.swan" 15 ruthsimplicity 14 Kirk 13 cardemaister 13 "do.rflex" 11 Richard M 11 Duveyoung 10 shempmcgurk 10 Rick Archer 10 Peter 10 I am the eternal 9 emptybill 9 "BillyG." 8 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 8 Alex Stanley 7 Robert 6 gullible fool 6 Dick Mays 5 Sal Sunshine 4 satvadude108 4 bob_brigante 3 yifuxero 3 raunchydog 3 off_world_beings 3 guyfawkes91 3 boo_lives 3 Randy Meltzer 3 Nelson 3 John 2 lm_alderton 2 geezerfreak 2 bshilpa2000 1 vskamala 1 uns_tressor 1 turiya89 1 new7892001 1 mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 1 lurkernomore20002000 1 jyouells2000 1 dhamiltony2k5 1 dasuki999 1 billy jim 1 aylyalight 1 Shilpa B 1 Patrick Gillam 1 Marek Reavis 1 Barbara Thomas Posters: 56 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Films I have not seen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Duveyoung wrote: > > Okay, confession: I haven't seen the following films: > >> > >> Lean On Me--great movie, well worth renting > > > >> Sicko--if you like docs, and I really do, don't miss this one > > > >> There Will Be Blood--couldn't get into it > > There Will Be Boredom would have been a better > > title. > >> > >> The Last King of Scotland--terrific movie, superb > > performances, I ff through the torture scene at the end > > Get thee to a video store, Edg! > > And I forgot to add...Million Dollar Baby--way > overrated IMO, although, unlike Blood, I did > manage to watch it all the way through. > > Sal > Yes, I agree that Million Dollar Baby was overrated but, boy, I sure enjoyed seeing Hillary Swank...and I love the Cinderella Story of her career: getting fired from 90210 one day and then coming back to win not one but two Oscars... "There will be blood" was fabulous. Funnily, the best scene in the movie was cut out. It is on the Extras, though, and it is where Daneil tells Mr. Sunday that his sun is a lunatic and asks if he, the father, could please stop bothering him. great stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
in other words Randy, Vaj will not take you at your word when you say your practice of TM has been everything that the Maharishi has promised. he will however take the merest hearsay, if negative about the practice of TM, and state it as fact here. he ends his post with a serious admonition about the damage TM does to its practitioners, while faithfully remaining silent regarding the genocide and cultural destruction wrought upon the countries presided over by "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama, and other highly placed Buddhists. reminds me of that show on TV, 60 Minutes, always going after the small fry, but as for institionalized corruption and failure, they turn a blind eye. having said all of that, i am pleased to hear about your success with TM. as i have said on here before, it is those who have done TM the least who criticize it the most. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > >> What post or posts are you referring to Randy? > > > > I am referring to any and all posts where you seem to indicate that > > TM has no validity. > > I've never said that Randy. I do and will respond to posts as I please > and if they contain inaccurate information on any number of subjects, > I may respond, as I please with what I believe to be true. It's > important to me, and I hope it is to you as well, to see that > historical record is set straight and that means if I feel like > responding to some misinformed notion or casually passed down myth, I > may post what I believe is correct. I will not lie for you, sorry. If > that bothers, you, then you might want to avoid my posts or this list > then, but that's your decision Randy. > > There are TM lists which say only nice things, like the Fairfield > Kiosk site. That sounds like it might be more up your alley. > > > You either say it or infer it very often. > > Look Vaj, I don't want to seem like a "TM is the answer" robot. I'm > > not. But after practicing it for 38 years, I can say without > > hesitation that the depth of my experience is profound and therefore > > to me, TM is as valid a practice as any other spiritual program, and > > at least for me, better. So this is why I am tired of you constantly > > trying to prove that it is less than Buddhism, tantra etc. You are > > entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but at the same time why > > can't you respect the experiences and opinions of those of us who > > have found everything that Maharishi promised through it? > > > Well I don't think that's the issue. People write things. I respond. > If what they say is false, I may respond with the sweet or sour truth. > If people don't like what I say, they should respond without ad > hominem and debate the question at hand, but they should have some > idea what they're talking about, not uncritically acquired beliefs. > > And I'm glad TM worked for you, I think that's great. I also, as I've > said before, had relatively good experiences with TM (but I think you > might have missed that post). I also shared what some of them were. I > really don't buy that there are people who "found everything that > Maharishi promised through [TM]", but I do believe there are people > who do believe that. I have just not seen evidence that shows me, > based on my own intuition and experience, that this is the case. I am > open to the fact that I may be wrong. > > The other issue is one of damage to people. I won't go into this in > detail, but for me, it's really the crux of the matter. To even > mention it here, is to set off a firestorm of ad hominem and negative > posts. But if it does happen (it has) it should be able to be > discussed openly and freely so that others need not suffer. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Randy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > >> What post or posts are you referring to Randy? > > > > I am referring to any and all posts where you seem to indicate that > > TM has no validity. > > I've never said that Randy. I do and will respond to posts as I please > and if they contain inaccurate information on any number of subjects, > I may respond, as I please with what I believe to be true. It's > important to me, and I hope it is to you as well, to see that > historical record is set straight and that means if I feel like > responding to some misinformed notion or casually passed down myth, I > may post what I believe is correct. I will not lie for you, sorry. If > that bothers, you, then you might want to avoid my posts or this list > then, but that's your decision Randy. > > There are TM lists which say only nice things, like the Fairfield > Kiosk site. That sounds like it might be more up your alley. > > > You either say it or infer it very often. > > Look Vaj, I don't want to seem like a "TM is the answer" robot. I'm > > not. But after practicing it for 38 years, I can say without > > hesitation that the depth of my experience is profound and therefore > > to me, TM is as valid a practice as any other spiritual program, and > > at least for me, better. So this is why I am tired of you constantly > > trying to prove that it is less than Buddhism, tantra etc. You are > > entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but at the same time why > > can't you respect the experiences and opinions of those of us who > > have found everything that Maharishi promised through it? > > > Well I don't think that's the issue. People write things. I respond. > If what they say is false, I may respond with the sweet or sour truth. > If people don't like what I say, they should respond without ad > hominem and debate the question at hand, but they should have some > idea what they're talking about, not uncritically acquired beliefs. > > And I'm glad TM worked for you, I think that's great. I also, as I've > said before, had relatively good experiences with TM (but I think you > might have missed that post). I also shared what some of them were. I > really don't buy that there are people who "found everything that > Maharishi promised through [TM]", but I do believe there are people > who do believe that. I have just not seen evidence that shows me, > based on my own intuition and experience, that this is the case. I am > open to the fact that I may be wrong. > > The other issue is one of damage to people. I won't go into this in > detail, but for me, it's really the crux of the matter. To even > mention it here, is to set off a firestorm of ad hominem and negative > posts. But if it does happen (it has) it should be able to be > discussed openly and freely so that others need not suffer. Vaj, You again have invalidated me and people like me with good experiences with TM. You mentioned above that you don't really buy that there are people who have found everything that Maharishi promised through TM, even though they believe they have. Again you are entitled to your opinion, but guess what. I don' just "Believe" that I have experienced everything that Maharishi promised, I have actually experienced it! Why can't you accept that You inability to accept this show how closed minded and opinionated you are. I don't need to go the more "positive" TM forums, I can take criticism and negativity toward TM and the organization. I may even be the first person to acknowledge some of it. But when someone like me comes along and says "hey look TM works for me", you can't accept it. Thats my point >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > But you used the term "world view," which you should > know is incorrect. Not to me. The big leap is the buy-in concerning his interpretation of the meditation experiences. His world view is that everything in the world is an expression of the absolute. This is what he spends most of his time discussing, not the political stuff. So if you are saying that you don't buy his world view that human consciousness can experience the home of all the laws of nature of the universe, and that this absolute being is in fact your own higher Self, then you may have a point. Although the distinctions you draw are relevant in certain discussions, they don't diminish my impression that you agree with his world view. You seem to disagree on how he applies his world view in specific contexts. > > As far > > as how emotionally invested your are we probably > > disagree, but who cares right? > > Forgot to comment on this. I care, because "emotional > investment" is a putdown in this context. Is it for you? I am emotionally invested in my POV concerning Maharishi's teachings. It was hard earned and I am proud of it. I think denying any emotional investment in something so obviously important in your life seems a bit slippery. That is why I mentioned it. We are not creatures who can claim such detachment. From my own experience, rejecting the beliefs in Maharishi's POV, reveals how much these beliefs mean to us. For you to consider that he may be wrong about human consciousness would have profound emotional implications due to years of commitment to them. Emotional investment and what Dr. Caldini refers to in his book "Influence" as the unconscious patterns of "consistency and commitment" are huge factors in how willing we are to re-examine long held beliefs. I am just as vulnerable to it's influence as you are. However if you were to use the phrase on me I might react exactly as you have, so I also see your point. I didn't mean that this is your only investment in your beliefs. You have obviously given them more thought than most people involved in the teaching and I give you credit for that as well. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think > > > > Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate. > > > > I know she also has a deep emotional investment in > > > > Maharishi's world view, > > > > > > Not his "world view" but his teaching on the nature > > > and mechanics of consciousness (and it's much less > > > "emotional" than intellectual and experiential). > > > > > I *disagree* with a great deal of his world view > > > (political, social, economic, behavioral, etc.). > > > > I understand the focus of what you agree with in > > his teaching and where you draw your lines. > > But you used the term "world view," which you should > know is incorrect. > > As far > > as how emotionally invested your are we probably > > disagree, but who cares right? > > Forgot to comment on this. I care, because "emotional > investment" is a putdown in this context. >
[FairfieldLife] To Randy
On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:26 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: What post or posts are you referring to Randy? I am referring to any and all posts where you seem to indicate that TM has no validity. I've never said that Randy. I do and will respond to posts as I please and if they contain inaccurate information on any number of subjects, I may respond, as I please with what I believe to be true. It's important to me, and I hope it is to you as well, to see that historical record is set straight and that means if I feel like responding to some misinformed notion or casually passed down myth, I may post what I believe is correct. I will not lie for you, sorry. If that bothers, you, then you might want to avoid my posts or this list then, but that's your decision Randy. There are TM lists which say only nice things, like the Fairfield Kiosk site. That sounds like it might be more up your alley. You either say it or infer it very often. Look Vaj, I don't want to seem like a "TM is the answer" robot. I'm not. But after practicing it for 38 years, I can say without hesitation that the depth of my experience is profound and therefore to me, TM is as valid a practice as any other spiritual program, and at least for me, better. So this is why I am tired of you constantly trying to prove that it is less than Buddhism, tantra etc. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but at the same time why can't you respect the experiences and opinions of those of us who have found everything that Maharishi promised through it? Well I don't think that's the issue. People write things. I respond. If what they say is false, I may respond with the sweet or sour truth. If people don't like what I say, they should respond without ad hominem and debate the question at hand, but they should have some idea what they're talking about, not uncritically acquired beliefs. And I'm glad TM worked for you, I think that's great. I also, as I've said before, had relatively good experiences with TM (but I think you might have missed that post). I also shared what some of them were. I really don't buy that there are people who "found everything that Maharishi promised through [TM]", but I do believe there are people who do believe that. I have just not seen evidence that shows me, based on my own intuition and experience, that this is the case. I am open to the fact that I may be wrong. The other issue is one of damage to people. I won't go into this in detail, but for me, it's really the crux of the matter. To even mention it here, is to set off a firestorm of ad hominem and negative posts. But if it does happen (it has) it should be able to be discussed openly and freely so that others need not suffer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I just did TM again and I liked it!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > It's a pretty irreplaceable technique to have in ones kit. > Easy huh? Isn't this why they call it prakriti-manas - the mind in its natural state? How could you not like it? Isn't this your ultimate nature? Have you forgotten what those old guys told us? If the mind is under pressure, it succumbs to bondage; If it is released, distortions will clear by themselves, What fetters ignorant people liberates wakeful people. A mind bound by tension will undoubtedly gain its self-release through relaxing its restriction. Thus, not recollecting, not thinking, not anticipating, not meditating, not examining or inspecting, let the mind be in its natural state. For like the expanse of space, mind transcends intellect. Let it remain in its relaxed, released state, without directing or settling it. Abandoning thought and the object of thought; remain innocent like an infant. - Tilopa and Saraha
[FairfieldLife] Re: The dying paroxysms of the Western world
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:44 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > "How dreadful are the curses which Islam lays on its votaries! > > Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man > > as rabies in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The > > effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, >>slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, >>and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the >>Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensuality deprives this life of its >>grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact >>that in Islamic law every woman must belong to some man as his >>absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must >>delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has>> ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may >> show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion >>paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No >>stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being >>moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has >>already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless >>warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is >>sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which >>it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might >>fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." > > Vaj - > It's funny to hear that, as I always thought that the increasing > popularity of Islam among Blacks seemed like "a new slavery" so > willingly embraced. At least for the women. Emptybill - The prophet sanctioned slavery so it is even more irrational. But that is the nature of Semitic monotheism. Irrational not transrational. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Vaj
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > > As a reader of this forum, I notice that Vaj is a frequent > > contributor. > > So Vaj, what are you trying to accomplish? > > Fine you don't like TM, Maharishi or the TM movement. > > WE GET IT! Do you have to keep trying to prove your point over and > > over ad naseum? > > Don't you realize that those of us who are having good experiences > > with > > TM are not going to be convinced of anything by your frequent posts? > > And those of us who are anti TM are already anti TM anyway. > > It seems your just wasting everyones time. > > > What post or posts are you referring to Randy? I am referring to any and all posts where you seem to indicate that TM has no validity. You either say it or infer it very often. Look Vaj, I don't want to seem like a "TM is the answer" robot. I'm not. But after practicing it for 38 years, I can say without hesitation that the depth of my experience is profound and therefore to me, TM is as valid a practice as any other spiritual program, and at least for me, better. So this is why I am tired of you constantly trying to prove that it is less than Buddhism, tantra etc. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but at the same time why can't you respect the experiences and opinions of those of us who have found everything that Maharishi promised through it? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think > > > Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate. > > > I know she also has a deep emotional investment in > > > Maharishi's world view, > > > > Not his "world view" but his teaching on the nature > > and mechanics of consciousness (and it's much less > > "emotional" than intellectual and experiential). > > > I *disagree* with a great deal of his world view > > (political, social, economic, behavioral, etc.). > > I understand the focus of what you agree with in > his teaching and where you draw your lines. But you used the term "world view," which you should know is incorrect. As far > as how emotionally invested your are we probably > disagree, but who cares right? Forgot to comment on this. I care, because "emotional investment" is a putdown in this context.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Films I have not seen
agree here too-- i found it incredibly boring and wooden, which was such a disappointment, given that Daniel Day Lewis had the starring role. i don't think i was able to stand it for even an hour. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > Agree with Sal. "There Will Be Blood" is not worth the time. Oddly written and acted in that you have a profound character change with no noticeable reson. The only thing that makes the movie worrthwhile is the "If you had a milkshake and I had a straw scene..." > > --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Sal Sunshine wrote: > From: Sal Sunshine > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Films I have not seen > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 2:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Duveyoung wrote: > Okay, confession: I haven't seen the following films: > > Lean On Me--great movie, well worth renting > Sicko--if you like docs, and I really do, don't miss this one > There Will Be Blood--couldn't get into itThere Will Be Boredom would have been a better title. > The Last King of Scotland--terrific movie, superbperformances, I ff through the torture scene at the end > Get thee to a video store, Edg! > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > There's one *huge* difference you're missing: I > > don't attack or belittle Vaj for his spiritual > > beliefs and practices or criticize his teachers. > > No your focus is more personal. I don't understand > why you think this is an improvement. I didn't say it was an "improvement." It's what I'm responding to; it's the provocation. Attacking and belittling a person or group for their personal beliefs and practices is reprehensible, in my view, and deserving of strong personal criticism. YMMV. > > I was going to ask you as well to acknowledge that > > Barry quite deliberately misrepresented my post, > > as I pointed out in my reply to him, but I see > > you've decided not to risk your relationship with > > him by correcting what he wrote and have instead > > done a 180 on what you said in the post I'm > > responding to. > > Asking me to do this is really missing the whole point > of my original post isn't it? If the point of your post is that you should never annoy people by calling them out when they lie, then I couldn't disagree with it more strongly. > > I'm sorry to say none of this surprises me. > > That's just being mean. It is unfriendly spin > slipped into a good discussion. Better put my > blinders on again. I don't believe any discussion in which one party deliberately misrepresents the other can be called a good one. As I've said before, Curtis, you frequently disappoint me. In the clutch, you have a distinct tendency to punt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > They are; Barry and Vaj are receiving sponsorship for > their long-time anti knowledge, anti TM-activities at FFL. Oh, come on, Nabby. That's nonsense. They lie on their own hook, out of their own noxious spite.
Re: [FairfieldLife] To Vaj
On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: As a reader of this forum, I notice that Vaj is a frequent contributor. So Vaj, what are you trying to accomplish? Fine you don't like TM, Maharishi or the TM movement. WE GET IT! Do you have to keep trying to prove your point over and over ad naseum? Don't you realize that those of us who are having good experiences with TM are not going to be convinced of anything by your frequent posts? And those of us who are anti TM are already anti TM anyway. It seems your just wasting everyones time. What a charming and thoughtful introductory post, Randy. :) Welcome to FFL. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > I was going to ask you as well to acknowledge that > > Barry quite deliberately misrepresented my post, > > as I pointed out in my reply to him, but I see > > you've decided not to risk your relationship with > > him by correcting what he wrote and have instead > > done a 180 on what you said in the post I'm > > responding to. > > In response to this, let's put back the > parts of my post that Judy so carefully > snipped out of it when replying to it. > Remember, above she is claiming that I > "deliberately misrepresented her post." > The following are the things I said that > she chose *not* to deal with. Barry's so proud of his invective, isn't he? I didn't "deal with" the stuff I cut because most of it is obviously just Barry's standard jaundiced opinion--all of which we've heard before, over and over, aggravated in this case by his fury at my having caught him in a whole series of lies over the past few days. And most of his attempt to "prove" the correctness of his opinion about my response to Vaj was, as I said, based on his lie that I had claimed to limit myself to providing a positive interpretation of what the TMO says and does, and that this is what I claimed to have been doing in my response to Vaj. That wasn't true, and Barry knew it wasn't true when he wrote it. Oh, and he's also annoyed that Boo said some nice things about me in his response, when Barry was hoping he'd blast me as Barry did. I'm going to snip the opinion again and "deal with" a few of the inaccurate bits. >From Barry's description of the thread: "Enter Judy, claws bared, defending the man posing as a woman because he's a **TM** man posing as a woman." I wasn't defending ed11 at all, of course, not because she's a TMer or for any other reason. I was making fun of Vaj. > and included *only* this, including only the > last paragraph, so that she could aim some > invective at Andrew Skolnick again, someone > who dumped her over a decade ago, but against > whom she still has an ongoing vendetta: "Dumped her"?? Is Barry fantasizing that Skolnick and I were carrying on a secret romantic relationship in private while at each other's throats on alt.m.t? Oh, this is funny. Barry was so proud of his invective he quoted a whole hunk of it *twice*. > She then goes on for a couple of long > paragraphs to say how *proud* she is > of this website. > > Well, I should think she should be. The > only thing really on it ARE HER WORDS. Blatant lie, and Barry knows it. There's plenty from Skolnick himself, as well as sections on other TMers who helped me fight his dishonesty on alt.m.t. > Those of you who are tempted to believe > Judy's description of herself and her > "honesty" and her noble motives here on > FFL, even after noticing how much of my > post she couldn't bring herself to deal > with, Barry, you're losing it. Here, I'll "deal with" almost everything I snipped: No, I'm not. No, I don't. No, I haven't. No, that's not why. > These are the things that Judy Stein was > saying on a regular basis YEARS before > Vaj entered her life. She said many of > these insulting, demeaning, and hateful > things TO FELLOW TMers, not to "anti-TMers." > All that Andrew did was collect and > catalog them. Another lie. Go read the site: > She hasn't changed one iota since then. > > http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ > > Note the TONE of these posts. Compare and > contrast it to her present tone, and then > laugh when she talks about Vaj's "tone" > that she claims she's reacting to. Note the > *personal* attacks, free for the most part > of any content except an attempt to demonize > the person she is talking to. Skolnick, of course, deliberately snipped much of the context, including his incredibly vicious personal attacks on me and other TMers (which put my attacks in the shade), as well as the actual substantive content of my responses rebutting his lies. *Barry knows this*. Those who weren't there at the time would have to go back to the Google archives of alt.m.t to see the context. > And finally, when she reads this post and > belatedly replies (as you know she will) > to what she so carefully snipped out of > her earlier reply to me, note how she deals > with my description of the thread being > discussed here, and her part in it. Barry's description of the thread was minimally accurate, albeit colored by his current out-of- control fury at me and ed11. I've "dealt with" the parts that required comment. As to Barry's main thesis, if you actually look at my posts, you'll find I very rarely issue any "invective" without distinct provocation, and virtually never without any actual substance. And the bottom line is the unbelievable hypocrisy of *Barry*, of all people, criticizing anybody else for personal attacks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote:
>
> They are; Barry and Vaj are receiving sponsorship for their
long-time > anti knowledge, anti TM-activities at FFL.
OK, the Maitreya delusion is just entertaining. This one is offensive
Nabby. Claiming such defamatory nonsense on a public forum is a low,
dirty trick. Fortunately for your targets anyone who would come
across this would see it in the contexts of your other beliefs and
laugh it off. But that doesn't excuse your malicious intent with this
creepy fantasy.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > > ("World domination." Hilarious.)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Should we go through the criteria, one by one?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd really enjoy that. Let's do it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, yes, let's! Why don't we start with this:
> > > > >
> > > > > "If you cannot find anyone who has all of these
> > > > > attributes, at least find someone who has more
> > > > > good qualities than defects."
> > > >
> > > > Very few give any response to the posts by this
> > > > Buddhist fundamentalist Vaj. He is ignored yet
> > > > year after year he spends a lot of time here with
> > > > his foolish propaganda and downright lies. I
> > > > suppose he must be retired to have so much time
> > > > on hand. Doen't he have better things to do,
> > > > walking dogs for example ? ;-)
>
>
>
> >> > WHY THE NEED for tmo TBs to try to enforce official
> > > tmo thinking here?
> >
>
> > I'm not a "tmo TB" by any stretch, although I
> > suspect you're including me here.
> >
> > From my perspective, it isn't at all a matter of
> > trying to "enforce" official TMO thinking; it
> > would be foolish in the extreme to make such an
> > attempt.
> >
> > Often the "alternative world view" incorporates
> > an extremely uncharitable interpretation of why
> > the TMO has done or said something. In some of
> > those cases, there's a more positive
> > interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible.
> > Since we don't know for sure what the TMO was
> > thinking, it makes sense to me that both possible
> > interpretations be provided.
> >
> > Plus which, there are a few people here whose
> > negative views of the TMO/MMY/TMers are
> > consistently expressed in an unnecessarily
> > unpleasant, superior, demeaning, insulting tone.
> > In at least some cases, what we're responding to
> > is as much the tone as the specifics. My response
> > to Vaj that you quote above was one such case.
> >
> > And then there are the flat-out factually
> > inaccurate or grossly misleading criticisms.
> > Nobody sensible should want their alternative
> > worldview to be based on such statements.
> >
> > And when one of the unpleasant people mentioned
> > above consistently comes out with factually
> > inaccurate or misleading criticisms, it's
> > awfully hard to resist thinking they're being
> > deliberately dishonest.
>
> They are; Barry and Vaj are receiving sponsorship for their long-time
> anti knowledge, anti TM-activities at FFL.
>
> From whom/what one could only speculate, though it is becoming
> increasingly clear. What we do know is that armed americans were
> caught with arms on the bridge to the Kulm. They where also payed for
> by "you know who".
>
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
By TM criteria, he is enlightened. By Buddhist criteria he is not fully enlightened. Are you familiar with the Bodhisattva path? On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:47 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: he doesn't claim to be enlightened, and yet, let's you and all of his other followers refer to him as His Holiness? if he isn't especially holy, why allow himself to be called that?
Re: [FairfieldLife] To Vaj
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > As a reader of this forum, I notice that Vaj is a frequent > contributor. > So Vaj, what are you trying to accomplish? > Fine you don't like TM, Maharishi or the TM movement. > WE GET IT! Do you have to keep trying to prove your point over and > over ad naseum? > Don't you realize that those of us who are having good experiences > with > TM are not going to be convinced of anything by your frequent posts? > And those of us who are anti TM are already anti TM anyway. > It seems your just wasting everyones time. What post or posts are you referring to Randy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Vaj
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > snip Like the black and white cookie: world peace. And who is this Randy Melzer anyway? Is he a Hare Krishna spy? How do we know for sure? Maybe he's Nabs? "No more soup for you !"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Scientology blames 9/11 on psychiatrists
Oh, please, let's not let facts get in the way of a great hypothesis! It ruins the fun to reveal that al-Zawahiri is an eye surgeon and not a psychiatrist. Let's see if we can put together a list of cults and their assignment of cause to various effects: - Mass-murders at a McDonald's of several decades ago: according to the Hari Krishna's, the billions of cows/cattle killed by same caused this karmic backlash (makes sense to me!) - 9/11: according to the Scientologists, caused by psychiatrists (hey, I'll go along with that). - 9/11: according to Pat Robertson, caused by homosexuals and abortions (or something like that). - Levi Butler's murder: according to Maharishi, caused by imbalance in society at large. - 9/11 Caused by Princess Diana and Jon Benet Ramsey flying on unicorns through the Twin Towers (probably the best...google it if you don't believe me!) - 9/11 was caused by Hillary and Britney Spears. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Dr. Pete, take note. You and your ilk are really the > axis of evil here. > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/scientologists-blame- psyc_n_167611.html > > In this clip, two members from the "Citizens Commission On Human > Rights," an advocacy group established by the Church of Scientology, > explain that psychiatry caused the 9/11 attacks. > > Larry Byrnes, the host of the "No Drug Show," and his guest David > Figueroa, claim that psychiatrists knowingly turn people into "killing > machines" using drugs, and that in bin Laden's case it was Ayman > al-Zawahiri, his second in command, who led him astray as his > psychiatrist. In fact, Ayman al-Zawahiri is an eye surgeon. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: > > What the tibetans in Tibet themselves think of his achievements is > a > > different matter; they are more on the 2 + side of things > > regarding "His Holiness's" abilities to achieve anything whatsover > > for Tibetan culture or religion. > > > yes, all of his "holiness" and so called multiple incarnations have > done nothing to stop the accelerated and systematic destruction of > tibet. of course he did flee the country a looong time ago. When Maharishi declared, quietly, the Dalai Lama to be "Just a politician" noone heeded. Now it is for all to see that the policies of the socalled "Dalai Lama", the reincarnation of so-and-so was just that; politics. Religious politics. Tibet as a country is now finished by the Chinese. The Lama failed. The multiple incarnations of the Lama did the Tibetans no good whatsoever. He was just another politician.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
>
> > > > ("World domination." Hilarious.)
> > > >
> > > > > Should we go through the criteria, one by one?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd really enjoy that. Let's do it!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, yes, let's! Why don't we start with this:
> > > >
> > > > "If you cannot find anyone who has all of these
> > > > attributes, at least find someone who has more
> > > > good qualities than defects."
> > >
> > > Very few give any response to the posts by this
> > > Buddhist fundamentalist Vaj. He is ignored yet
> > > year after year he spends a lot of time here with
> > > his foolish propaganda and downright lies. I
> > > suppose he must be retired to have so much time
> > > on hand. Doen't he have better things to do,
> > > walking dogs for example ? ;-)
>> > WHY THE NEED for tmo TBs to try to enforce official
> > tmo thinking here?
>
> I'm not a "tmo TB" by any stretch, although I
> suspect you're including me here.
>
> From my perspective, it isn't at all a matter of
> trying to "enforce" official TMO thinking; it
> would be foolish in the extreme to make such an
> attempt.
>
> Often the "alternative world view" incorporates
> an extremely uncharitable interpretation of why
> the TMO has done or said something. In some of
> those cases, there's a more positive
> interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible.
> Since we don't know for sure what the TMO was
> thinking, it makes sense to me that both possible
> interpretations be provided.
>
> Plus which, there are a few people here whose
> negative views of the TMO/MMY/TMers are
> consistently expressed in an unnecessarily
> unpleasant, superior, demeaning, insulting tone.
> In at least some cases, what we're responding to
> is as much the tone as the specifics. My response
> to Vaj that you quote above was one such case.
>
> And then there are the flat-out factually
> inaccurate or grossly misleading criticisms.
> Nobody sensible should want their alternative
> worldview to be based on such statements.
>
> And when one of the unpleasant people mentioned
> above consistently comes out with factually
> inaccurate or misleading criticisms, it's
> awfully hard to resist thinking they're being
> deliberately dishonest.
They are; Barry and Vaj are receiving sponsorship for their long-time
anti knowledge, anti TM-activities at FFL.
>From whom/what one could only speculate, though it is becoming
increasingly clear. What we do know is that armed americans were
caught with arms on the bridge to the Kulm. They where also payed for
by "you know who".
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rahu
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: > > No need Doug, I do it TM too infrequently. Too much TM makes me mean and > spacey. Checking or not. Too long or too often? L. > >
[FairfieldLife] Scientology blames 9/11 on psychiatrists
Dr. Pete, take note. You and your ilk are really the axis of evil here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/scientologists-blame-psyc_n_167611.html In this clip, two members from the "Citizens Commission On Human Rights," an advocacy group established by the Church of Scientology, explain that psychiatry caused the 9/11 attacks. Larry Byrnes, the host of the "No Drug Show," and his guest David Figueroa, claim that psychiatrists knowingly turn people into "killing machines" using drugs, and that in bin Laden's case it was Ayman al-Zawahiri, his second in command, who led him astray as his psychiatrist. In fact, Ayman al-Zawahiri is an eye surgeon.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Films I have not seen
Agree with Sal. "There Will Be Blood" is not worth the time. Oddly written and acted in that you have a profound character change with no noticeable reson. The only thing that makes the movie worrthwhile is the "If you had a milkshake and I had a straw scene..." --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Sal Sunshine wrote: From: Sal Sunshine Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Films I have not seen To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 2:01 PM On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Okay, confession: I haven't seen the following films: Lean On Me--great movie, well worth renting Sicko--if you like docs, and I really do, don't miss this one There Will Be Blood--couldn't get into itThere Will Be Boredom would have been a better title. The Last King of Scotland--terrific movie, superbperformances, I ff through the torture scene at the end Get thee to a video store, Edg! Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] To Vaj
Hey, I like Vaj. He and I have completely different takes on MMY, but so what. Like the black and white cookie: world peace. And who is this Randy Melzer anyway? Is he a Hare Krishna spy? How do we know for sure? Maybe he's Nabs? --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Randy Meltzer wrote: > From: Randy Meltzer > Subject: [FairfieldLife] To Vaj > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 3:55 PM > As a reader of this forum, I notice that Vaj is a frequent > contributor. > So Vaj, what are you trying to accomplish? > Fine you don't like TM, Maharishi or the TM movement. > WE GET IT! Do you have to keep trying to prove your point > over and > over ad naseum? > Don't you realize that those of us who are having good > experiences with > TM are not going to be convinced of anything by your > frequent posts? > And those of us who are anti TM are already anti TM anyway. > It seems your just wasting everyones time. > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Finally on TV News - Beheading
On CNN Today WEB RESULTSProminent Orchard Park man charged with beheading his wife : Don't Miss ...Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim ...www.buffalonews.com/494/story/578644.html - Cached http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think > > Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate. > > I know she also has a deep emotional investment in > > Maharishi's world view, > > Not his "world view" but his teaching on the nature > and mechanics of consciousness (and it's much less > "emotional" than intellectual and experiential). > I *disagree* with a great deal of his world view > (political, social, economic, behavioral, etc.). I understand the focus of what you agree with in his teaching and where you draw your lines. As far as how emotionally invested your are we probably disagree, but who cares right? > > > > Vaj really really believes in his POV about the > > movement. (I do with my own too.) He sincerely > > believes in the value of spiritual practices just > > as Judy does, from his own experience and > > interpretation of them. So both of you are deeply > > committed for good reasons. The problem is that > > they are in direct contradiction. > > There's one *huge* difference you're missing: I > don't attack or belittle Vaj for his spiritual > beliefs and practices or criticize his teachers. No your focus is more personal. I don't understand why you think this is an improvement. You feel justified but I often feel you are reading in too much like with the "kids" comment. It was over the top as it was since I don't know of any case where he was accused of banging kids so it didn't need the spin that he was insinuating gay pedophilia. You had enough of a case against the statement already IMO. > > I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge this, > Curtis. I understand that you'd like to equate Vaj > and me in terms of our behavior so you can do your > Dr. Phil number, but I really doubt Dr. Phil would > overlook such a gaping discrepancy. When he is critical of Maharishi and you are critical of him personally I can't really see your side Judy. You can argue about when and where you do this, but this is part of your posting style. I know you feel justified when you do it but is comes off as ad hominemish. I don't expect you to agree with this and if it helps you often get a dose of this from Vaj and others as well. > > If Vaj were simply touting his own beliefs, I > would have little to say to him. He's entitled to > them, as I am to mine. This is true in your interactions with me. > > I was going to ask you as well to acknowledge that > Barry quite deliberately misrepresented my post, > as I pointed out in my reply to him, but I see > you've decided not to risk your relationship with > him by correcting what he wrote and have instead > done a 180 on what you said in the post I'm > responding to. Asking me to do this is really missing the whole point of my original post isn't it? This is the aspect of the interactions I was arguing against. My relationship with you and Vaj and Barry is not so delicate that we can't disagree. Finding places where we mis-represent each other is exhausting. I have enough trouble keeping up with my own misrepresentations of people's posts! My response was not a 180 but my interest in the topic has become more about me and my own motives. What I wrote in the beginning has sparked a meta discussion on how we communicate here and that has an entertainment value for me. > > You refer to your "blinders"--I gather they're what > has allowed you to miss the irony of Barry's > characterizations of my behavior and motives given > his own long history of "personal invective and > personal abuse of others," especially when you add > in the component of the constant dishonesty in which > that invective and abuse is couched (his post in > question being an excellent example). didn't you understand my POV in my post at all? > > I'm sorry to say none of this surprises me. That's just being mean. It is unfriendly spin slipped into a good discussion. Better put my blinders on again. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > I was going to ask you as well to acknowledge that > Barry quite deliberately misrepresented my post, > as I pointed out in my reply to him, but I see > you've decided not to risk your relationship with > him by correcting what he wrote and have instead > done a 180 on what you said in the post I'm > responding to. In response to this, let's put back the parts of my post that Judy so carefully snipped out of it when replying to it. Remember, above she is claiming that I "deliberately misrepresented her post." The following are the things I said that she chose *not* to deal with. Decide for yourself if snipping them out was an attempt to misrepresent mine. First, she included this: > She has a long history of attempting > to demonize and destroy the reputations of > the people who provided the "less positive > view." But then she carefully snipped this: > Several here do not. I try to never give them > any shit when they provide a more positive spin > on things TM or TMO *when they limit themselves > to doing that*. But when they feel the need to > *follow* their "positive interpretation" with > comments such as the one Judy "finished up" > her post with about how Vaj has no scruples or > honesty, *in a conversation with someone who > was not even Vaj*, I'm sorry but there is no > need for that *except* vindictiveness and spite. > > That's over the line. My contention is that > that vindictiveness and spite is what Judy is > really interested in presenting, NOT the "more > positive interpretation." The "more positive > interpretation" is merely a smokescreen, a > prelude, a pretext so that she can let loose > with the personal invective against the person > who presented the "more negative interpretation." > > To balance this, Vaj sometimes does the same thing. Next, she snipped this part: > I don't think that there is a single person on > this forum -- *yourself included* -- who believes > that. The history of Judy's personal invective > and personal abuse of others -- *including fellow > TMers* -- is just too long and too established > for you to actually buy the line of crap she was > spouting in this P.R. post to boo_lives. > > I'm pretty sure *he* didn't buy it, and I don't > think you did, either. You were just trying, as > you often do, to provide some balance and some > mediation here. And good on you for that. Next, she carefully snipped my account (*accurate* account) of the history of the thread under discussion, including *only* the part about her false claim that Vaj insinuated that Maharishi was interested in young boys: > But the bottom line is the bottom line, for *both* > Judy and Vaj. > > In this exchange, as I see it, *all that Vaj did* > originally was to post an *opinion* by the Dalai > Lama. Dawn (and you know as well as I do who that > really is) replied stupidly, trying to push Vaj's > buttons. He succeeded only in that Vaj suggested in > reply, before addressing ED's claims specifically, > that he...uh...she had a "skewed sense of reality." > Given that we are talking about a man posing here > as a woman, I somehow think that you might not > disagree with that assessment. :-) > > Enter Judy, claws bared, defending the man posing > as a woman because he's a **TM** man posing as a > woman. > > First she called Vaj a snob. Then she "played editor" > and corrected him in a putdown way on a typo. Next > she suggested that he implied that Maharishi lusted > after young boys and not just young girls, which Vaj > never did. She then mocked his use of the word "palace" > to describe Vlodrop (which *she has never seen*), > calling it instead a "monastery." I presume that is > the "providing a more positive interpretation" thang > she talked about in her P.R. speech to boo_lives. :-) Then she snipped all of this next part: > Curtis, go back and *read the actual posts*. Then reread > your sentence above, "I think Judy's description of her > own motives seem accurate." > > Do you really believe that, or were you just taken out > by Judy's backpedaling, smarmy, self-congratulatory > "explanation" of her motives that she tried to pull on > someone else she was trying to wrap and get him to see > her the way that she sees herself? > > I understand to some extent what you were trying to do, > but don't be taken in by this bullshit, Curtis. Judy's > behavior in this exchange speaks for itself, as does > Vaj's. > > When Vaj spends more time in a post "going for the > throat" and putting down the people he's talking to > *personally*, as opposed to challenging their ideas, > bust him on it. > > But when Judy does the same thing, bust her, too. > > My contention is that even given Vaj's overexuberance > in terms of "pushing TB buttons" on this forum, he > does not have the history of mean-spirited, hateful > personal attacks that Judy does. He is *perceived* > that way
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rahu
No need Doug, I do it TM too infrequently. Too much TM makes me mean and spacey. Checking or not. - Original Message - From: "dhamiltony2k5" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Rahu > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Kirk" wrote: >>I would therefore suggest that you > make a firm committment during this whole period to at least do your > Ishta or practice every day if only for a minute. > > Kirk, had your meditation 'checked' recently? Rick Archer or a few > others here could do that with you, or look here: > http://www.tm.org/enjoy/lifetime.html > >> Hey, I just am coming out of Rahu and it has been rough. Rahu lasts >>quite a long time. During this time I involuted I would say. But >>here's the thing. You cannot help it so just go with it. This is the > way to appease adverse forces. If you can't beat em, join em. I am so > finally happy to be going into a very well placed Guru in 2012. So for > me personally 2012 has significance beyond the New Ager. Rahu was very > spiritual for me, though also very 'dirty.' Though I often found it > hard to practice during this period. I would therefore suggest that you > make a firm committment during this whole period to at least do your > Ishta or practice every day if only for a minute. So while I often > couldn't sit still to meditate I still developed quite a bit. For the > sadhu out there a rahu period can be very good for clearing out old > modes of thought and behavior. So Buddha Bless! God Bless! Just enjoy > Rahu. It is a bit more nitty gritty and so you'll be maybe living a > bit closer to the bone than perhaps other times. >> > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > It had nothing to do with Judy or what she experiences (or doesn't > > experience) during TM. > > > Correct. It had to do with personal experiences of the Dalai Lama > which you do not understand or are willing to acknowledge. > > Your dear Dalai is not enlightened, not even according to his own > understanding. > > "The Dalai Lama is just a politician" > - Maharishi > > As a politician on the world scene I would rate him a 3 + (on a scale > 1 - 10), I mean the fellow did receive a Nobel Peace prize, for > whatever reason. > > What the tibetans in Tibet themselves think of his achievements is a > different matter; they are more on the 2 + side of things > regarding "His Holiness's" abilities to achieve anything whatsover > for Tibetan culture or religion. > yes, all of his "holiness" and so called multiple incarnations have done nothing to stop the accelerated and systematic destruction of tibet. of course he did flee the country a looong time ago.
[FairfieldLife] To Vaj
As a reader of this forum, I notice that Vaj is a frequent contributor. So Vaj, what are you trying to accomplish? Fine you don't like TM, Maharishi or the TM movement. WE GET IT! Do you have to keep trying to prove your point over and over ad naseum? Don't you realize that those of us who are having good experiences with TM are not going to be convinced of anything by your frequent posts? And those of us who are anti TM are already anti TM anyway. It seems your just wasting everyones time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > It had nothing to do with Judy or what she experiences (or doesn't > experience) during TM. Correct. It had to do with personal experiences of the Dalai Lama which you do not understand or are willing to acknowledge. Your dear Dalai is not enlightened, not even according to his own understanding. "The Dalai Lama is just a politician" - Maharishi As a politician on the world scene I would rate him a 3 + (on a scale 1 - 10), I mean the fellow did receive a Nobel Peace prize, for whatever reason. What the tibetans in Tibet themselves think of his achievements is a different matter; they are more on the 2 + side of things regarding "His Holiness's" abilities to achieve anything whatsover for Tibetan culture or religion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
gotta agree with you wholeheartedly on this one Judy. the comments made here about TM, TMers, the Maharishi and the TMO are anything but objective. and somehow to then fight fire with fire here is off limits. what a joke. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think > > Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate. > > I know she also has a deep emotional investment in > > Maharishi's world view, > > Not his "world view" but his teaching on the nature > and mechanics of consciousness (and it's much less > "emotional" than intellectual and experiential). > > I *disagree* with a great deal of his world view > (political, social, economic, behavioral, etc.). > > > > Vaj really really believes in his POV about the > > movement. (I do with my own too.) He sincerely > > believes in the value of spiritual practices just > > as Judy does, from his own experience and > > interpretation of them. So both of you are deeply > > committed for good reasons. The problem is that > > they are in direct contradiction. > > There's one *huge* difference you're missing: I > don't attack or belittle Vaj for his spiritual > beliefs and practices or criticize his teachers. > > I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge this, > Curtis. I understand that you'd like to equate Vaj > and me in terms of our behavior so you can do your > Dr. Phil number, but I really doubt Dr. Phil would > overlook such a gaping discrepancy. > > If Vaj were simply touting his own beliefs, I > would have little to say to him. He's entitled to > them, as I am to mine. > > I was going to ask you as well to acknowledge that > Barry quite deliberately misrepresented my post, > as I pointed out in my reply to him, but I see > you've decided not to risk your relationship with > him by correcting what he wrote and have instead > done a 180 on what you said in the post I'm > responding to. > > You refer to your "blinders"--I gather they're what > has allowed you to miss the irony of Barry's > characterizations of my behavior and motives given > his own long history of "personal invective and > personal abuse of others," especially when you add > in the component of the constant dishonesty in which > that invective and abuse is couched (his post in > question being an excellent example). > > I'm sorry to say none of this surprises me. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > I'm not a "tmo TB" by any stretch, although I > > suspect you're including me here. > > No I don't. You use a different language generally > and you use more objective logic. Thank you. In fact my guess is that if you were to actually > work for the tmo for a couple yrs you might get > into trouble. My guess too. One reason I never tried! > I guess I would consider you a theoretical TM-SCI TB Pretty close. I no longer remember how much of SCI deals with issues other than the nature and mechanics of consciousness, but as I said to Curtis, the N&M of consciousness is the only aspect of MMY's teaching I'm committed to (and that only as my working hypothesis). , which is just > fine, except I don't think actual life and > practice within the tmo community has much to > do with TM or MMY's thinking a la the early 70s. >From what I read and hear, I'd have to concur, sadly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
he doesn't claim to be enlightened, and yet, let's you and all of his other followers refer to him as His Holiness? if he isn't especially holy, why allow himself to be called that? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:44 AM, Robert wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> > >> From Becoming Enlightened by HH the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso > >> (2009). > >> (snip) > > Dali has never claimed to be enlightened, and I don't believe he is. > > > That's true, he would never make that claim. > > He is a high level bodhisattva, so that would be (for comparisons > sake) well beyond the realization of a say, a jnani. He's a very > humble guy, so I seriously doubt you'd ever hear him making such > claims unless it was to make a teaching point, although advanced > yogis who spent a lot of time with him have commented on his state of > consciousness. And of course (allegedly) reincarnating many different > times, isn't exactly easy for the average person. ;-) > > In real saints, there's often a very neutral sense of presence. If > there's an energetic sense, bliss, etc. about a saint, it's typically > someone 'still in process' IME. > > HHDL has the ability to transmit the recognition of enlightenment to > his students so it is a worthwhile style of realization since the > transmission of pure vidya is said to be like carrying the Buddha in > the palm of your hand. I also know he's successfully taught many in > the various samadhis and done so successfully. >
[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of "attachment?" (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )
Great thread. I'm posting some comments following up on Richard's in
a very loose fashion.
Like Richard's experience, my sense of self is a presence that is
unengaged and without attributes. In my funky example of the bagel's
hole, it (self) is defined by what surrounds it but is in itself
without attributes. The configuration of this body which was born
some 57 years ago and the mind and personality that accompany it just
draw the attention of that; they overlay that without (apparently)
affecting it.
Curtis, you use the terms disassociation and depersonalization as
necessary and negative corollaries to the experience of such an
unengaged awareness of self, but that doesn't tally with my
experience. My mental and physical engagement with the world of work
and play and study appears to be robust (and alternately pleasurable
or not as circumstances dictate) but the sense of that which underlies
it all provides a real sense of flow, which as it is reflected in mind
and body, itself provides a great feeling of pleasure and peace.
It doesn't feel like a round robin of the aggregate of my mind
parceling out one portion and contemplating it, and then reassembling
and parceling out another portion of my mind and thinking about that.
It does feel as though the body and mind draw the attention of that
and, voila, there is positive experience through the body and through
the mind that wasn't there before, even though "I" was precedent. The
analogy of radio or television transmissions that exist independently
of any receivers, but when a receiver is constructed, turned on, and
tuned it, suddenly there is the experience of the underlying
transmission, seems to more or less describe my understanding and my
experience.
As to how a single whole self can underly all the different
personalities that are doesn't seem all that perplexing to me. I've
got lots of parts of my body that I don't pay attention to, but if I
want, I can put my attention on a finger or a toe or any other
discernible portion and it doesn't mean that I've just found them. If
I lose an eye or a limb or a finger, there is a loss to the body (or
the mind in the case of dementia, for instance) but I'd be hard
pressed to define that as a loss of my self. And again, the
transmission/receiver analogy similarly demonstrates that the same
transmission is received by as many receivers that are compatible with
the transmission. The addition or loss of any or all receivers
doesn't affect the transmission at all.
Anyway, just some quick riffing on a subject that is at the heart of
what I'm still dealing with, and I really appreciate both your
participation in this thread. I agree, this is a work in progress for
me and one of the great things about FFL is that I've come to the
understanding and appreciation of just that.
Marek
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"
> >
> > > I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
> > > possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some
odd
> > > way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the
objective
> > > world ("objective" here meaning all objects of consciousness,
> > whether> they be the sun, moon & stars, or beefburgers, or my
> > feelings,> sensations & dreams).
> >
> > That sounds a little depersonalized to me. How was your lunch?
The
> > guy who can answer that is the the guy I mean.
>
> Ha! That guy's gone. Was that me?
>
> But I agree. It IS "a little depersonalized". The problem with my
feel
> for how things are is in explaining how there is more than one
*self*,
> more than one identity.
>
> > > The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
> > > different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every
morning
> > > (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard*
> > problem> is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
> >
> > I think we have some pretty compelling evidence that our separate
> > bodies and brains have something to do with this. I believe our
> > consciousness is an emergent quality of our brains activity.
>
> OK. But I think this is pure "faith" on your part. I put it to you
> that we have no understanding whatsoever about what consciousness
is,
> least of all how it emerges. What we have is hubris over Science.
And
> in this, I don't think you are with me in how I feel about "objects
of
> consciousness". My "objects" are your "subjective states".
>
> > ( I
> > experiment with bourbon to check occasionally. There is a
definite
> > connection!)
>
> Yes bourbon definitely affects the objects of consciousness!
>
> > Assuming that you might wake up as someone else without
> > swapping brains seems fanciful. (But a great movie premise!)
>
> Where did you get your brain ideas? Do you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > This post has some interesting insight. I think > Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate. > I know she also has a deep emotional investment in > Maharishi's world view, Not his "world view" but his teaching on the nature and mechanics of consciousness (and it's much less "emotional" than intellectual and experiential). I *disagree* with a great deal of his world view (political, social, economic, behavioral, etc.). > Vaj really really believes in his POV about the > movement. (I do with my own too.) He sincerely > believes in the value of spiritual practices just > as Judy does, from his own experience and > interpretation of them. So both of you are deeply > committed for good reasons. The problem is that > they are in direct contradiction. There's one *huge* difference you're missing: I don't attack or belittle Vaj for his spiritual beliefs and practices or criticize his teachers. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge this, Curtis. I understand that you'd like to equate Vaj and me in terms of our behavior so you can do your Dr. Phil number, but I really doubt Dr. Phil would overlook such a gaping discrepancy. If Vaj were simply touting his own beliefs, I would have little to say to him. He's entitled to them, as I am to mine. I was going to ask you as well to acknowledge that Barry quite deliberately misrepresented my post, as I pointed out in my reply to him, but I see you've decided not to risk your relationship with him by correcting what he wrote and have instead done a 180 on what you said in the post I'm responding to. You refer to your "blinders"--I gather they're what has allowed you to miss the irony of Barry's characterizations of my behavior and motives given his own long history of "personal invective and personal abuse of others," especially when you add in the component of the constant dishonesty in which that invective and abuse is couched (his post in question being an excellent example). I'm sorry to say none of this surprises me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What does Xe mean? Blackwater's New Name!
[Cool - the merc-firm now wants to be known as a flash-point substance found in minute amounts 'everywhere'. Go figure the omens on that one!] Xe 1 [pronounced: EX-e] Definition: a colorless odorless inert gaseous element occurring in the earth''s atmosphere in trace amounts http://ardictionary .com/Xe Xe The symbol for the element xenon. http://www.thefreed ictionary. com/Xe xenon (znn) Symbol Xe A colorless, odorless element in the noble gas group occurring in extremely small amounts in the atmosphere. It was the first noble gas found to form compounds with other elements. Xenon is used in lamps that make intense flashes, such as strobe lights and flashbulbs for photography. Atomic number 54; atomic weight 131.29; melting point -111.9°C; boiling point -107.1°C; density (gas) 5.887 grams per liter; specific gravity (liquid) 3.52 (-109°C). See Periodic Table. http://www.thefreed ictionary. com/xenon US Security Firm Mired in Iraq Controversy Changes Its Name Blackwater Worldwide is abandoning its tarnished brand name as it tries to shake a reputation battered by oft-criticised work in Iraq, renaming its family of two dozen businesses under the name Xe. The parent company's new name is pronounced like the letter z. Blackwater Worldwide's headquarters is seen in Moyock, N.C., in this July 21, 2008 file photo. Blackwater is abandoning its tarnished brand name as it tries to shake a reputation battered by oft-criticized work in Iraq, renaming its family of two dozen businesses under the name Xe. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome) Blackwater Lodge & Training Centre - the subsidiary that conducts much of the company's overseas operations and domestic training - has been renamed US Training Centre Inc., the company said today. The decision comes as part of an ongoing rebranding effort that grew more urgent following a September 2007 shooting in Iraq that left at least a dozen civilians dead. Blackwater president Gary Jackson said in a memo to employees the new name reflects the change in company focus away from the business of providing private security. "The volume of changes over the past half-year have taken the company to an exciting place and we are now ready for two of the final, and most obvious changes," Jackson said in the note. In his memo, Jackson indicated the company was not interested in actively pursuing new private security contracts. Jackson and other Blackwater executives said last year the company was shifting its focus away from such work to focus on training and providing logistics. "This company will continue to provide personnel protective services for high-threat environments when needed by the US government, but its primary mission will be operating our training facilities around the world, including the flagship campus in North Carolina," Jackson said. The company has operated under the Blackwater name since 1997, when chief executive Erik Prince and some of his former Navy Seal colleagues launched it in north-eastern North Carolina, naming their new endeavour for the area swamp streams that run black with murky water. But the name change underscores how badly the Moyock-based company's brand was damaged by its work in Iraq. In 2004, four of its contractors were killed in an insurgent ambush in Fallujuah, with their bodies burned, mutilated and strung from a bridge. The incident triggered a US siege of the restive city. The September 2007 shooting in Baghdad's Nisoor Square added to the damage. The incident infuriated politicians both in Baghdad in Washington, triggering congressional hearings and increasing calls that the company be banned from operating in Iraq. Last month, Iraqi leaders said they would not renew Blackwater's license to operate there, citing the lingering outrage over the shooting in Nisoor Square, and the US state department said later it will not renew Blackwater's contract to protect diplomats when it expires in May. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said the company made the name change largely because of changes in its focus, but acknowledged the need for the company to shake its past in Iraq. "It's not a direct result of a loss of contract, but certainly that is an aspect of our work that we feel we were defined by," Tyrrell said. http://waronyou. com/topics/ blackwater- worldwide- renamed-xe- as-company- tries-to- salvage-its- tarnished- brand/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Barry's always at his most, um, transparently > creative when he's trying to extricate his > dick from a wringer. This Turq fellow needs to spend less time on the internet and more time walking with dogs. Good for dogs, good for Turqs.
[FairfieldLife] Analogy for ignoring long vowels in Sanskrit?
Perhaps a "bit" exaggerated analogy for ignoring the long vowels in Sanskrit could be that ya played e.g. Star Spangled Banner changing all the quarter notes to eighth notes! :0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think Judy's > > description of her own motives seem accurate. > > For the record, Curtis, I do not. I really can't argue with your POV in this context, although it goes farther than I would in ascribing sinister motives. I went back and actually read the posts in question. (What a concept!) I was jumping in with a meta-position of my own invention with no connection to the posts. Anyone who wants to declare "bullshit" on my POV definitely have a case! The way this place works for me best is to keep pretty tight blinders on when I focus on each person. I am choosing what aspect to relate to. Trying to sell this POV to anyone else is probably misguided. Who the F do I think I am giving advice to two other adults about their communications with each other? Especially not having read the posts they were responding to? I'll focus on that charming part of myself a bit as the gift of this whole exchange! > > If what she really wanted was to provide a > more "positive interpretation that's at least > somewhat plausible," that would be one thing. > But that is NOT what she limits herself to > doing. She has a long history of attempting > to demonize and destroy the reputations of > the people who provided the "less positive > view." > > Several here do not. I try to never give them > any shit when they provide a more positive spin > on things TM or TMO *when they limit themselves > to doing that*. But when they feel the need to > *follow* their "positive interpretation" with > comments such as the one Judy "finished up" > her post with about how Vaj has no scruples or > honesty, *in a conversation with someone who > was not even Vaj*, I'm sorry but there is no > need for that *except* vindictiveness and spite. > > That's over the line. My contention is that > that vindictiveness and spite is what Judy is > really interested in presenting, NOT the "more > positive interpretation." The "more positive > interpretation" is merely a smokescreen, a > prelude, a pretext so that she can let loose > with the personal invective against the person > who presented the "more negative interpretation." > > To balance this, Vaj sometimes does the same thing. > > But for her to claim that she does what she does > on this forum out of a sense of *caring* for the > poor TMers being "misled" by "dishonest" people > like Vaj is laughable -- bullshit so deep one > needs hip boots to wade through it. > > I don't think that there is a single person on > this forum -- *yourself included* -- who believes > that. The history of Judy's personal invective > and personal abuse of others -- *including fellow > TMers* -- is just too long and too established > for you to actually buy the line of crap she was > spouting in this P.R. post to boo_lives. > > I'm pretty sure *he* didn't buy it, and I don't > think you did, either. You were just trying, as > you often do, to provide some balance and some > mediation here. And good on you for that. > > But the bottom line is the bottom line, for *both* > Judy and Vaj. > > In this exchange, as I see it, *all that Vaj did* > originally was to post an *opinion* by the Dalai > Lama. Dawn (and you know as well as I do who that > really is) replied stupidly, trying to push Vaj's > buttons. He succeeded only in that Vaj suggested in > reply, before addressing ED's claims specifically, > that he...uh...she had a "skewed sense of reality." > Given that we are talking about a man posing here > as a woman, I somehow think that you might not > disagree with that assessment. :-) > > Enter Judy, claws bared, defending the man posing > as a woman because he's a **TM** man posing as a > woman. > > First she called Vaj a snob. Then she "played editor" > and corrected him in a putdown way on a typo. Next > she suggested that he implied that Maharishi lusted > after young boys and not just young girls, which Vaj > never did. She then mocked his use of the word "palace" > to describe Vlodrop (which *she has never seen*), > calling it instead a "monastery." I presume that is > the "providing a more positive interpretation" thang > she talked about in her P.R. speech to boo_lives. :-) > > Curtis, go back and *read the actual posts*. Then reread > your sentence above, "I think Judy's description of her > own motives seem accurate." > > Do you really believe that, or were you just taken out > by Judy's backpedaling, smarmy, self-congratulatory > "explanation" of her motives that she tried to pull on > someone else she was trying to wrap and get him to see > her the way that she sees herself? > > I understand to some extent what you were trying to do, > but don't be taken in by this bullshit, Curtis. Judy's >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think Judy's > > description of her own motives seem accurate. > > For the record, Curtis, I do not. > > If what she really wanted was to provide a > more "positive interpretation that's at least > somewhat plausible," that would be one thing. > But that is NOT what she limits herself to > doing. FAIL. If Barry had read the entire post, he'd know not only that I didn't claim to limit myself to that, but that I explicitly gave a *different* reason for going after Vaj in the post Curtis is responding to. Most of the rest of Barry's diatribe is based on that error. Hmm. It's not an error after all, I realize. Barry *did* read the entire post, so he *does* know his accusation above isn't true. She has a long history of attempting > to demonize and destroy the reputations of > the people who provided the "less positive > view." Translation: I criticize people who don't present the less-positive view *honestly*. > But for her to claim that she does what she does > on this forum out of a sense of *caring* for the > poor TMers being "misled" by "dishonest" people > like Vaj is laughable -- bullshit so deep one > needs hip boots to wade through it. It would be if that's what I claimed, but, of course, I didn't. That's Barry's fabrication for purposes of demonizing me. > she suggested that he implied that Maharishi lusted > after young boys and not just young girls, which Vaj > never did. We disagree. > Vaj, after all, does not have an entire website devoted > to describing him as the "junkyard dog." Judy does. > There is a reason for this. Right. It's because (as Barry knows) a far more vicious junkyard dog than I couldn't get away with his dishonesty on alt.m.t, so he had to find a way to put it on the Web where nobody could call him on it. I was the focus of that Web site because I was his chief critic on alt.m.t (although by no means his only critic; several other TMers are featured on the site as well). As I've said before, I consider his site a badge of honor. It's an expression of extreme frustration and a desire for vengeance on Andrew Skolnick's part.
[FairfieldLife] Final Score on Approval for Stimulus Package
"In any event, the final score was unambiguous. The stimulus package arrived with the price tag and on roughly the schedule Obama had set for it. "The president's job approval percentage now ranges from the mid 60s (Gallup, Pew) to mid 70s (CNN) not bad for a guy who won the presidency with 52.9 percent of the vote. While 48 percent of Americans told CBS, Gallup and Pew that they approve of Congressional Democrats, only 31 (Gallup), 32 (CBS) and 34 (Pew) percent could say the same of their G.O.P. counterparts." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/opinion/15rich.html?_r=1
[FairfieldLife] Is Obama's Tax Cut the Biggest in History?
The economic stimulus package to be signed today by President Obama includes one of the largest tax cuts in American history -- $282 billion in tax cuts over two years. The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years. According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others. http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/02/is-obamas-tax-cut-the-biggest.html "It's hard imagine we won't hear about this four years from now. And if that's not boxing a future Republican candidate in ahead of time, I don't know what is. Think about how many potential Republican arguments are going to be pre-empted by that nice little fact?" A bonus for Democrats: Nearly every Republican in Congress voted against it. Marc Ambinder http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/the_biggest_tax_cutter.php
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shankara's native language?
Tanil & Samskrit maybe? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > Well, since I haven't chatted with him recently.;-) > > > --- On Tue, 2/17/09, cardemaister wrote: > > > From: cardemaister > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Shankara's native language? > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 6:59 AM > > It seems to me that Shankara's native language > > might have been the Dravidian(?) malayalam. > > > > Any comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > This post has some interesting insight. I think Judy's > description of her own motives seem accurate. For the record, Curtis, I do not. If what she really wanted was to provide a more "positive interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible," that would be one thing. But that is NOT what she limits herself to doing. She has a long history of attempting to demonize and destroy the reputations of the people who provided the "less positive view." Several here do not. I try to never give them any shit when they provide a more positive spin on things TM or TMO *when they limit themselves to doing that*. But when they feel the need to *follow* their "positive interpretation" with comments such as the one Judy "finished up" her post with about how Vaj has no scruples or honesty, *in a conversation with someone who was not even Vaj*, I'm sorry but there is no need for that *except* vindictiveness and spite. That's over the line. My contention is that that vindictiveness and spite is what Judy is really interested in presenting, NOT the "more positive interpretation." The "more positive interpretation" is merely a smokescreen, a prelude, a pretext so that she can let loose with the personal invective against the person who presented the "more negative interpretation." To balance this, Vaj sometimes does the same thing. But for her to claim that she does what she does on this forum out of a sense of *caring* for the poor TMers being "misled" by "dishonest" people like Vaj is laughable -- bullshit so deep one needs hip boots to wade through it. I don't think that there is a single person on this forum -- *yourself included* -- who believes that. The history of Judy's personal invective and personal abuse of others -- *including fellow TMers* -- is just too long and too established for you to actually buy the line of crap she was spouting in this P.R. post to boo_lives. I'm pretty sure *he* didn't buy it, and I don't think you did, either. You were just trying, as you often do, to provide some balance and some mediation here. And good on you for that. But the bottom line is the bottom line, for *both* Judy and Vaj. In this exchange, as I see it, *all that Vaj did* originally was to post an *opinion* by the Dalai Lama. Dawn (and you know as well as I do who that really is) replied stupidly, trying to push Vaj's buttons. He succeeded only in that Vaj suggested in reply, before addressing ED's claims specifically, that he...uh...she had a "skewed sense of reality." Given that we are talking about a man posing here as a woman, I somehow think that you might not disagree with that assessment. :-) Enter Judy, claws bared, defending the man posing as a woman because he's a **TM** man posing as a woman. First she called Vaj a snob. Then she "played editor" and corrected him in a putdown way on a typo. Next she suggested that he implied that Maharishi lusted after young boys and not just young girls, which Vaj never did. She then mocked his use of the word "palace" to describe Vlodrop (which *she has never seen*), calling it instead a "monastery." I presume that is the "providing a more positive interpretation" thang she talked about in her P.R. speech to boo_lives. :-) Curtis, go back and *read the actual posts*. Then reread your sentence above, "I think Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate." Do you really believe that, or were you just taken out by Judy's backpedaling, smarmy, self-congratulatory "explanation" of her motives that she tried to pull on someone else she was trying to wrap and get him to see her the way that she sees herself? I understand to some extent what you were trying to do, but don't be taken in by this bullshit, Curtis. Judy's behavior in this exchange speaks for itself, as does Vaj's. When Vaj spends more time in a post "going for the throat" and putting down the people he's talking to *personally*, as opposed to challenging their ideas, bust him on it. But when Judy does the same thing, bust her, too. My contention is that even given Vaj's overexuberance in terms of "pushing TB buttons" on this forum, he does not have the history of mean-spirited, hateful personal attacks that Judy does. He is *perceived* that way by people who have their emotional buttons pushed by him presenting views of spirituality that conflict with their long-held and rarely-challenged beliefs. They IMO *cannot tell the difference* between those emotional buttons being pushed and actually being attacked. But Judy's history in terms of personally attacking others was already well-established LONG BEFORE Vaj ever entered her life. Vaj, after all, does not have an entire website devoted to describing him as the "junkyard dog." Judy does. There is a reason for this. I think they're *both* crazy as loo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Films I have not seen
On Feb 17, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Okay, confession: I haven't seen the following films: Lean On Me--great movie, well worth renting Sicko--if you like docs, and I really do, don't miss this one There Will Be Blood--couldn't get into it There Will Be Boredom would have been a better title. The Last King of Scotland--terrific movie, superb performances, I ff through the torture scene at the end Get thee to a video store, Edg! And I forgot to add...Million Dollar Baby--way overrated IMO, although, unlike Blood, I did manage to watch it all the way through. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > I'm not a "tmo TB" by any stretch, although I > suspect you're including me here. No I don't. You use a different language generally and you use more objective logic. In fact my guess is that if you were to actually work for the tmo for a couple yrs you might get into trouble. I guess I would consider you a theoretical TM-SCI TB, which is just fine, except I don't think actual life and practice within the tmo community has much to do with TM or MMY's thinking a la the early 70s. > > From my perspective, it isn't at all a matter of > trying to "enforce" official TMO thinking; it > would be foolish in the extreme to make such an > attempt. > > Often the "alternative world view" incorporates > an extremely uncharitable interpretation of why > the TMO has done or said something. In some of > those cases, there's a more positive > interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible. > Since we don't know for sure what the TMO was > thinking, it makes sense to me that both possible > interpretations be provided. > > Plus which, there are a few people here whose > negative views of the TMO/MMY/TMers are > consistently expressed in an unnecessarily > unpleasant, superior, demeaning, insulting tone. > In at least some cases, what we're responding to > is as much the tone as the specifics. My response > to Vaj that you quote above was one such case. > > And then there are the flat-out factually > inaccurate or grossly misleading criticisms. > Nobody sensible should want their alternative > worldview to be based on such statements. > > And when one of the unpleasant people mentioned > above consistently comes out with factually > inaccurate or misleading criticisms, it's > awfully hard to resist thinking they're being > deliberately dishonest. > > If you're dubious about what I just wrote, you > might want to take into account how many of > the criticisms made here we *don't* object to. > If you compare those we don't object to to those > we do object to, I think you'll probably find > that the latter mostly, if not all, tend to fall > into the above categories. > > > > This site isn't filled with J.Knapp's who are > > out there as anti TM activists, we're just > > individuals generally with long "spiritual" > > histories working things out amongst ourselves > > It's not "filled" with them, certainly, but there > are several who seem to be at least informal > anti-TM activists, who are here not to work things > out but simply to bash. I think it would be > extremely difficult to characterize Vaj as wanting > to work things out for himself. He's already > decided, and he wants to push anyone still on the > fence to decide the same way, while at the same > time nastily putting down anyone who leans the > other way. And he doesn't seem to me to have many > scruples as to how he accomplishes that, with > regard either to honesty or minimal tolerance for > disagreement. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Films I have not seen
On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Duveyoung wrote: Okay, confession: I haven't seen the following films: Lean On Me--great movie, well worth renting Sicko--if you like docs, and I really do, don't miss this one There Will Be Blood--couldn't get into it There Will Be Boredom would have been a better title. The Last King of Scotland--terrific movie, superb performances, I ff through the torture scene at the end Get thee to a video store, Edg! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 1:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > For Vaj, as I understand his POV, he believes that Judy is actually > > not experiencing what she thinks she is in TM. He believes that she > > would be better served with another practice of meditation. > > > Unless there's some other post, written under my name, that I missed, > I don't see what any of this has to do with my original post or > subsequent ones. It doesn't, I jumped in without following that exchange closely. It was based on your interaction history and interest in your writing here. I was being a bit of a busybody. > > I posted a quote from the Dalai Lama's latest book. Dawn responded > saying she felt it validated that Maharishi was an "excellent and > qualified teacher". I responded with why I felt that was > unreasonable, based on what the Dalai lama was saying and what I knew > of the Maharishi's life, training and works. Her response seemed like > a huge non sequitur to me. No one seemed interested in addressing the > disparities in Dawn's claim and M's life. When these claims can't be > made (for reasons that seem obvious to me), the mudslinging and ad > hominem attacks begin. > > It had nothing to do with Judy or what she experiences (or doesn't > experience) during TM. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful wedding gown needs bride
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: Naomi Greenfield [mailto:n...@...] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:21 PM > To: Naomi Greenfield > Subject: Beautiful wedding gown needs bride I'll see if my GF is up for fulfilling my "best man at wedding defiling the bride" fantasy. Last time I checked it was a no-go, but that request came on the heals of the unfortunate "catwoman" latex outfit incident. (I'm still healing from the scratches and she breaks out in hives if she even sees a rubber balloon being inflated. In my own defense, who knew that liquid latex bonds with human skin after a certain period of time?) > > > > Hi. Do you know anyone getting married soon? > > I gave my wedding gown to my god-daughter, who has now broken her engagement > and no longer wants the dress. Do you know any lovely brides who are in > need of a wedding gown? Free to a good home. The gown is in Fairfield. > Contact Sringli Johnson at 641-472-2390 or 472-0094. It's a size 10 or 12. > Easily adjusted. Lots of lace and pearls, long trai. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
On Feb 17, 2009, at 1:06 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: For Vaj, as I understand his POV, he believes that Judy is actually not experiencing what she thinks she is in TM. He believes that she would be better served with another practice of meditation. Unless there's some other post, written under my name, that I missed, I don't see what any of this has to do with my original post or subsequent ones. I posted a quote from the Dalai Lama's latest book. Dawn responded saying she felt it validated that Maharishi was an "excellent and qualified teacher". I responded with why I felt that was unreasonable, based on what the Dalai lama was saying and what I knew of the Maharishi's life, training and works. Her response seemed like a huge non sequitur to me. No one seemed interested in addressing the disparities in Dawn's claim and M's life. When these claims can't be made (for reasons that seem obvious to me), the mudslinging and ad hominem attacks begin. It had nothing to do with Judy or what she experiences (or doesn't experience) during TM.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
''Maharishi School students are the best and the brightest". Compared to what? Certainly not compared to Jewish people On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > http://livinginsmal lsizes.com/ 2009/02/13/ several-maharish i-graduates- > busted-for- growing-pot/ > > http://is.gd/ jOCY Remember, Maharishi School students are the best and the brightest. They graduate and go to the very best schools. Of course we'd expect them to do business on a very large scale. The $180,000 cash seized was probably just money they planned to give back to the school in donations, perhaps to help pay part of one student's semester tuition. The undoing of the former students is of course predictable. They used too much power. This is a very big sin. Using too much power violates the laws of green and sustainable living. How did they get as big as they did? Well, pot uses up carbon dioxide and produces oxygen. This is seen by followers of the Church of the Green House as vital to keep Fairfield from being inundated by the Gulf of Mexico.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crackpot Sen. Declares Victory Over Global Warming 'Conspiracy'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" wrote: > > The thing to know about Inhofe is that he is a longtime influential > member of The Family, a powerful group of christian fundamentalists > that believes gov't should be based on biblical law. They know how > politics is played and the need to not be too obvious about their real > goals - thus they publicize a lot on "pro family" stuff but really > want to undo secular govt and society (a la taliban). > > Inhofe really believes that earth was created 6000 yrs ago as the > bible says, so you can imagine how real geologic and climate science > must make his mind swoon. He's also on the take from Big Oil: Inhofe has accepted over $1,090,023.00 in contributions from the Big Oil & Gas industries... http://mefeedia.com/entry/jim-inhofe-big-oils-million-dollar-baby/12062337/ > > Here's a book on the group: > http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/B001Q3KM4O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234889066&sr=1-1 > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > > > > > Inhofe Declares Victory Over The U.N.-MoveOn-Soros Global Warming > > Conspiracy: I've Prevailed > > > > > > On his radio show this morning, conservative talker Bill Bennett > > hosted the most prominent global warming denier in Congress, Sen. > > James Inhofe (R-OK). Opening up the conversation on the subject, > > Bennett declared, "I think you've prevailed on this." > > > > "I really believe it," replied Inhofe, claiming that his opponents > > "won't say global warming any more, they're trying to say climate > > change." He added that he thinks former Vice President Al Gore is > > "getting nervous" because, he claimed, "the science is totally > > changed." Inhofe then claimed that more scientists are skeptical of > > climate change than those who believe in it: > > > > > > INHOFE: > > So the science, the science is totally changed. It was the IPCC, those > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with the United Nations. But > > keep in mind, the only report you get from them is their summary for > > policy docs. And those are not scientists. There's only 52 scientists > > that signed on to those, to that, as opposed to what? Some 650 who now > > have rebuked that. > > > > > > FACTS: > > It shouldn't come as any surprise that Inhofe's comments are loose > > with the facts. The 52 scientists he refers to prepared the 2007 IPCC > > report's "Summary for Policymakers," but the report itself was "a > > synthesis of thousands of scientific papers" and was built on the work > > of "2500 scientists over six years." As for Inhofe's discredited 650 > > skeptical "experts," some of them actually support the theory of > > manmade global warming. > > > > Further proving the fallacy of Inhofe's claims, a survey of 3,146 > > earth scientists released earlier this week found that 90 percent > > believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s > > levels and 82 percent believe that human activity has been a > > significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Ninety-seven > > percent of climatologists said humans play a role. > > > > Links here: > > http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/22/inhofe-global-warming-prevailed/ > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Films I have not seen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Okay, confession: I haven't seen the following films: > > Talk To Me > Reign Over Me Haven't seen. > Lean On Me Worth it. Top notch actors in their youth serving up some of the best kid's acting I have seen. They take you back to the confusion of youth's incomplete perspectives. It will make you see why losing River Phoenix was a real loss. > Sicko I enjoyed it but my Canadian friends claim it is very inaccurate. I also had a friend who had experience with Cuba's medical system and that seems totally bogus in the film. But the confrontation with how broken our system is with some good detail is shocking and depressing. When you see how much each senator made from the pharma industry you can see why our laws are not consumer friendly. It woke me up to the adversarial relationship with the guy in my insurance company whose job is to find any loophole to avoid large payouts is depressing but it armed me for battle if I am ever really sick. > There Will Be Blood > A Mighty Heart Haven't seen > Million Dollar Baby Great film. It has an ending more characteristic of French films that allows it to transcend it's feel good overall theme. > Hotel Rwanda Meant to shock and it delivers. The real heroism is moving. It is a ticket to hell so reading the story is a reasonable option. The fact that this is going on in our lifetime is a wake up call. You may be dark enough already Edg! > The Last King of Scotland Saw bits. Gives you some gray zones for a diabolical character. That part is cool but it couldn't hold my interest for some reason once I "got" that. > Flags of Our Fathers Haven't seen. but I dug Gran Torino by Eastwood. > Brokeback Mountain I resisted this one for such a long time till I got so many overwhelmingly positive reports from every type of person in my world. When I finally saw it I was blown away. (What did you expect ZERO Beevis and Butthead in this review?) Again we see how much the loss of a great actor is gunna cost us. The acting is so compelling and everything is done so well you regain faith that an American blockbuster can deliver the goods. Of this list this is my "don't miss" pick. > > I've talked myself out of seeing any of them. Perhaps I have ruined a > couple by reading too many reviews that had too many spoilers -- like > knowing the ending of Million Dollar Baby. > > Not that I haven't watched other films that deliver the kinds of > emotions that the above do -- I have slurped deeply believe me -- but > why should I "sign up" for the above experiences and process so much > dark and negative material? > > The reason I'm posting is to give y'alls a chance to point out the > nuggets in the above list -- the "must see" films that are so > important that they rise above the angst with transcendental > life-affirmations. > > Secretly, I'm hoping none of the above are championed by anyone here > -- ah, validation is my heroin. > > Edg >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Knowing the Qualifications of a Teacher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
This post has some interesting insight. I think Judy's description of
her own motives seem accurate. I know she also has a deep emotional
investment in Maharishi's world view, but that seems natural given her
years of practice and interest. When she goes after my posts is it
usually with a balancing perspective that I enjoy and find useful.
But I think she is missing the core of Vaj's motivations here. She is
assuming the same negitive spin on his intentions that she is claiming
he does with movement people.
Vaj really really believes in his POV about the movement. (I do with
my own too.) He sincerely believes in the value of spiritual
practices just as Judy does, from his own experience and
interpretation of them. So both of you are deeply committed for good
reasons. The problem is that they are in direct contradiction.
For Vaj, as I understand his POV, he believes that Judy is actually
not experiencing what she thinks she is in TM. He believes that she
would be better served with another practice of meditation.
For Judy, as I understand her POV, she is experiencing what Maharishi
described in his teaching and uses that explanation as her functional
belief context. (I am equivocating a bit because Judy's relationship
with beliefs is nuanced.) She believes that Vaj's attacks are mean
spirited due to malicious intent or severe character flaw.
And here is my Dr. Phil moment...
How are those assumptions working out for you? If you dig the style
of antagonistic battles carry on and enjoy them. But if they don't
serve you, it might be because you are both stuck in a limited
perspective of each other. That may be the only way this can work so
please don't mistake my input as me thinking I am offering profound
insight. I am just giving you both my take since I have a ringside
seat and enjoy reading both your posts here.
I have long been an unsuccessful advocate of the POV that you both
share the biggest assumptions about reality. You just don't agree
with the details. And that discussion is interesting to the rest of
us because you disagree in entertaining detail.
In the past Judy has responded with a perspective on how bad Vaj is
and his many transgressions in her eyes. And Vaj has his own equally
uncomplimentary take on Judy world.
For my money you both add an intensity of interest in these topics and
a willingness to write about them that is unique and valuable here. I
am encouraging any interaction on the topics of spiritual practices.
The posts about each others character flaws are really none of my
business. (Of course that hasn't stopped me!)
Guys like me are posting here from the bleachers beyond left field
concerning spirituality. I like my seat and its perks of regular hot
dogs and hot chicks navigating their way to their seats. But you two
are on the field and you are interesting writers. A more charitable
view of each other might facilitate more of what I come to the game to
watch here.
OK thanks for listening. I'm back to my fascination with how that
chick in the micro mini is going to get herself up to the bleachers
without becoming the latest picture on voyeurweb.com. (Er...uh...if
there was such a site...) I can see about 30 guys with cellphone
cameras tracking her every step.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
>
> > > > ("World domination." Hilarious.)
> > > >
> > > > > Should we go through the criteria, one by one?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd really enjoy that. Let's do it!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, yes, let's! Why don't we start with this:
> > > >
> > > > "If you cannot find anyone who has all of these
> > > > attributes, at least find someone who has more
> > > > good qualities than defects."
> > >
> > > Very few give any response to the posts by this
> > > Buddhist fundamentalist Vaj. He is ignored yet
> > > year after year he spends a lot of time here with
> > > his foolish propaganda and downright lies. I
> > > suppose he must be retired to have so much time
> > > on hand. Doen't he have better things to do,
> > > walking dogs for example ? ;-)
> > >
> > I find Vaj very interesting, at least it's usually
> > info I've not come across before even if I don't
> > agree completely.
> >
> > What I actually don't get is why nabluss and the
> > like post here. We've all been exposed to approved
> > tmo doctrine for decades, we know all the perfect
> > logic, spent 1000s of hours listening to mmy, even
> > promoted it ourselves for years and years, but it
> > doesn't work for us anymore and most of us here are
> > looking to process our tmo involvement and freely
> > explore alternative world views, or at least modify
> > the approved doctrine to something that fits our
> > reality (or some reality).
> >
> > WHY THE NEED for
Re: [FairfieldLife] Several Maharishi Graduates Busted For Growing Pot
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > http://livinginsmallsizes.com/2009/02/13/several-maharishi-graduates-busted-for-growing-pot/ > > http://is.gd/jOCY Remember, Maharishi School students are the best and the brightest. They graduate and go to the very best schools. Of course we'd expect them to do business on a very large scale. The $180,000 cash seized was probably just money they planned to give back to the school in donations, perhaps to help pay part of one student's semester tuition. The undoing of the former students is of course predictable. They used too much power. This is a very big sin. Using too much power violates the laws of green and sustainable living. How did they get as big as they did? Well, pot uses up carbon dioxide and produces oxygen. This is seen by followers of the Church of the Green House as vital to keep Fairfield from being inundated by the Gulf of Mexico.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Films I have not seen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Okay, confession: I haven't seen the following films: > > > > Talk To Me > > Reign Over Me > > Lean On Me > > Sicko > > There Will Be Blood > > A Mighty Heart > > Million Dollar Baby > > Hotel Rwanda > > The Last King of Scotland > > Flags of Our Fathers > > Brokeback Mountain > > The only one I've seen is Brokeback Mountain, Ditto. which, in terms of > titillating visuals, is far more interesting for > the str8 boys. I enjoyed it a lot for the extremely intelligent and compassionate script and superb acting and direction. I have a number of longtime gay male friends, so it wasn't as if the film were a peek into a world I knew nothing about. The part I *didn't* know much about was the world of closeted gays (my friends have been "out and proud" since my college days, which is when I got to know them). So the profound poignancy of that situation is what affected me emotionally the most. It seems to me there are a lot of levels on which the film could be appreciated (or not appreciated!) depending on one's background and experience.
